said your mama as you were being born

Lol, come on man. While I completely disagree with communism and socialism (at least the kind that doesn't recognize property rights, free association, free contract, and the right to trade property and labor), you have to have a better dialog than that. You're not converting anyone to individual liberty and property rights with name calling. Imo, The video was 10X more of a respectful conversation than any other communist/socialist apologist on KZfaq. And unfortunately I've seen a lot.

@@thorns deez nutz

agree

@@user-us1yu8gx9s Yeah, great example. I instantly don't respect anything you say and assume that you are mentally handicapped. No chance of a dialog.

thanks that was my aim

Can you suggest other channels that are part of this new wave please Antonio?

@@Libertarian606 check out Fight Like an Animal (audio podcast only), Alpha to Omega, Varn Vlog, This is Revolution, General Intellect Unit, Mortal Science, Swampside Chats

I thought this guy was anti communist and shit from the title of the video

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 it still wouldnt work humans are competitive and the best way to build a great society is to use that competition to invent new stuff america has ruled the world for the last 200 years because wwre fast learners

Lmao

Technically true, but communism cannot be achieved by humans.

"Real communism has never been tried before" Every. Single. Time. 🙄

Irrelevant -- not what Marxists support.

To be fair - Who is to decide what is worse and what is better?

@@missk1697 there are many factors you can look at: level of poverty, crime rates, infrastructure upkeep, mental health statistics, the age at which people marry (19-20 means stuff is good, 27-28 means people are really stressed out). There's 1000 I didn't mention, but these are a good starting place.

@@missk1697 I think this is a rhetorical remark, mostly saying no one particular party can have the monopoly of political power.

@@marinielgalvao5259 Concentration of power is the enemy. You can control this by check and balances, Federalism, free market economy with regulation.

cool! curious to see what you think of the next episode, the conclusion i come to is pretty rare in the literature

I agree! I jumped to a conclusion but later found this video to be intelligent and informative.

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 May the episode come out soon, I love your channel!

@@alx3183 a few more weeks - i had a draft script ready when i recorded the first episode but since then ended up reading a lot more to get certain details down

I was in the Soviet Union it really really sucked. Couldn't buy a goddamn sausage if your life depended on it and you had a million rubles and were walking down the street Moscow. The KGB was everywhere and people were afraid to talk publicly about politics.

thank you andrew - i can’t wait either! i wish someone would make it for me! these burn me out each time! i think the next one is going to be a doozy, the stuff I’m reading now is really blowing my mind…

Got to re-paste this here, cause there will be a chance this comment will get delete: I watch to the "Long answer" time stamp. And it is obvious many thing is wrong with your video, a very similar problem to Kraut, another history and economic liberal KZfaqr analysis of Yugoslavia civil wars, and blame the Serbs for commit the majority of the atrocities, on the basic that the Serbians politics sphere had a large influence on Yugoslavia army, thus majority Yugoslavia army members are Serbs, or puppet of Serbs, who thus commit the most atrocities. You take historical events, and historical politics in the USSR governments, simplify it as mere actions to support a conclusion you already have in minds, that is "All Communist country is a Dictatorship". You already didn't cares to takes those events, like the funding of Communist parties outside USSR, Laws that take away the Capitalist, and landlord powers in it wide context of what was going, and the point of what they were doing in a larger historical and political context. Another thing is your "Communist revolution is also Nationalist Revolution", that is untruth, while some bare some Nationalist charactered, they, after gaining brief control of their country, realize how "Getting rid the former Elite" just turn into creation of another Elite group, and If you equate this new Elite groups gaining power after a Revolution is the same as working class people, because there are some working class who rose to powers after a Liberal Revolution, then you, already decide your conclusion before looking for evident to support that conclusion of your.

I brought up the Yugoslavia civil wars because Kraut made many dishonestly and short sight conclusion, which you also made , but not for Yugoslavia, but, just an example, in your short and long answer section, about the USSR and why other Communist party try to replicate it failure, which your statement about it being Undemocratic can only exist if you think the Bolshevik party is allow to exist, without the West trying to kill it from the beginning, blah blah blah English this English that. I brought up Kraut, in his video about Chomsky talk about the Yugoslavia civil war, but Chomsky isn't Important, Kraut comment "Serb was blame the most, because they cause most of the atrocities" or something like that, which is Incorrect, and I hopes he wasn't thinking about this, as oppose to him wanting to reach that conclusion. BECAUSE He equate "Serbs have the most representation in Yugoslavia after TITO" to mean absolutely anything, including the Yugoslavia military, which, by that logic above, meant the Yugoslavia Army during the early Civil Wars, is majority Serbian services or heavily dominate by Serbian will, thus the Yugoslavia army commit more genocide on Croatian and Bosnian, on the assumption that this about quitting mass of protestor and about ethnicities more than a broader picture. His Analysis is like your Analysis, close off, bog down and only make sense in the most Liberal Nationalist possible, because it does not taken into consideration of the REAL situation when the Russian Revolution happen. Like your comment about "Socialist Revolution also are Nationalist Revolution" and "Getting rid of the former Ruler and Elite class" and why Lenin, Karl Marx didn't even think Socialist/Communist revolution in poor countries is even possible, which that terms, I don't know if Richard Wolf said or not, and It doesn't matter. Do you think the point of "getting rid of the former Elite" is just to replace them, with the working class as the ruler? Sure, that is true, AND it is only 1 part of a 1000 parts series of why they did that. If it was just to remove the Monarchy or a "few rich Capitalist" Elite, then the Russian Revolution would became another Liberal Republics doing may be control Capitalism instead of free market capitalism. Did you even read how the Economy work in USSR, and trade between Socialist Countries??? Of course, "Read" from places that aren't Richard Wolf, which I don't know how much of his influence in political theory work Is in this video, but from a man that said "Communism is when the Government does more stuff", How does Anyone who wasn't ignorant of how the USSR government work, can look at this, and say this is an accurate assessment??? Lenin and Marx didn't even think Socialist/Communist revolution is possible? and? Does French people think the French Revolution is possible before they did it? Did Britain and those country who splits from the Vatican think it was possible before they did it? Obviously NOT. What does it matter on what Karl and Lenin thinks when they was growth up in an Era when an entire Working class runs the government is literally a pipe dream, and they didn't even think, well Marx was dead by then, but Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky even think the Bolsheviks winning and control of Russia alone was possible? OBVIOUSLY NOT, they did it, and they found out that it was possible, like a Cave man picking up a stick on fire, and didn't know that Fire can cooks food before he actually put food, on top of another stick, press it again the Fires? Or did among the First colonialist thinks that Colonialism, in which they enslaves and exploit the native on the first ever colonialism process was possible, even morally can be ignore before they try it? Obviously Not. Or did the SS suddenly exist, and decide to kills Eastern Europe on mass, because one day they decide that they can run Eastern Europe Better. I felt have to repeat myself, cause people like you, said thing, that only exist when there are no world outside of it, and IT isn't a evolution of something, that been going on for centuries before, Like Trench Warfare suddenly just happen, suddenly spicy chemical weapons is very effective, or why Western world, now including China, Russia also sends poor people out to dies so they can take control of this region and it resource, and not let it fall in the hand of their rival for example, these thing, event in wider history doesn't happen in a night, nor a month, nor 10 years, nor just 100 years, and it just exist. Your entire Short answer and Long answer section is concentrate on what the Bolshevik does, the Bolsheviks party and it leader did, ignore how it leader is only the lead of a teams, and it member had dies in the thousand during the course of USSR history, including the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil Wars, which already had killed the most of the earliest Bolsheviks members, often by the Russian White Nationalist faction and their sponsor, the Western Powers to kill Socialism in it track and fail to do so, which they proceed to put the heaviest economic embargoes and sanctions on Russia possible, one of which include removing the values of Russian Currency and Russia Gold standard of it values, and only will trade, still with heavy embargoes, in Grains. NONE OF THESE THING, you, like Kraut had taken into account that there are a bigger Power supporting the destruction of Socialism before it had been turn into a political party in the government office, let alone allow it to run a region, let alone a government. Policy toward foreign relation, public spending, the military and rights are all develop in the decade and THUS are effected by what the situation around it, which doesn't just include Russia, it also include the Rest of the ruling world, thus Britain, France, Germany and America. Lenin didn't even lives to see WW2 starting, so why would IT MATTER, that He didn't think decolonization effort that Stalin USSR and Tito Yugoslavia undergoes with the rest of the "Poor countries" or rather ex-colonial countries COULD develops their socialism or not? He dies before the Soviet Russia is even stables, he see and do less thing, because he dies earlier than HCM and Castro, and they, but especially Castro policy underwent different directions to the core concept of a democratic Working class countries have everything to do with it surrounding, such as the USA, which had try to deletes it from exist, past 50 commit genocide on it, to protect US corporation interest. OH please, you didn't think about why these Communist countries, in socialist phase still have to be so militarize to begin with, as if it is a must to kept those in worker, the so call "Communist Elite" in power, and NOT actually to protect the countries and it foundation as a Socialist countries from the power that want to destroy it, again after USSR collapse, the only power left are EU and NATO, both are created to oppose to Socialism. As if Vietnam government do this Neoliberal reform in the 1980s for capitalism, and not have to make some sacrifice against it own Socialist policy in order to be allow to trade with other countries. UN let the US bombs Yugoslavia, when they was protecting their sovereignty right as an existing countries, and were dealing with their domestic problems in the form of Nationalist Revolution, just as those in Croatia, Bosnia and Albania, which all try to form French style Revolution because they are Croatian, Bosnian, and Albanian etc, the "not-Serbian" fighting against the Serbian Overlord are what they think they were doing during the Civil Wars, and when they cleanse the local Serbian population, which are everywhere, they will achieve a National revolution when they outed all of the "not-them" from "their land". This alone I think you can agree as acts of Terrorism. But America use the excuse of Yugoslavia central Government was doing "genocide on" some ethnic groups instead of them putting down a Nationalist Insurgent, to get UN approval in making sure, after USSR is gone, no more big influential Socialist Block can exist no longer. NONE OF THIS, you taken into consideration, you nor Kraut even think about what going on outside these Socialist block countries, which let me remind you, Socialist, just the Social Democrat are shots, dispose of, then discredit intensively to begin with, in Italy, in America, In Mexico, In Brazil all during the Cold Wars, and here you are demanding that Socialist countries must be proper Democratic Socialist country and complain about my English.

@@Huy-G-Le Dude - I’m commenting on your english because you’re writing a 5000 word essay and i literally cannot understand what you are fucking saying. Maybe I’m being generous in assuming that you can actually make sense in your own language - maybe you also spit out reams of incomprehensible gibberish in that language as well, but I am spending my precious time to ask you to write in your language and then put it into google translate so that we can actually have a discussion, and you are just being a dick about it and writing even more torrents of nonsense. I can’t respond to anything you’re saying because I literally have no idea what you’re saying or what ANYTHING you said in this insane giant post has to do with my video or my ideas! I have spent about 25 hours in the past two days responding to about 300 comments here and on reddit, and if you want to get your fucking points across then do what I said and write in the language that you are proficient in and put it in google translate, instead of writing a bunch of incomprehensible gibberish and then being pissed off that I can’t understand it.

I was so terrified going into this video. "Oh, this is going to make me so angry, isn't it? This is going to be like FEE and full of misinformation..." Then I see the top comment is Andrewism, and now I am excited.

Even calling it "public education" is part of the propaganda system. The "rigid and formal mass brainwashing", is a central component of the capitalist ruling class system of population wide mass indoctrination and social control of the working class. Children are brainwashed for a decade or two, all of them. I think it is easy to underestimate the unbelievable damage this does to us and our society.

My 11th grade history teacher actually provided us definitions of capitalism and socialism that were quite on point

according to whatever you learned since then (if that's anything) @@TheGalaxyWings Sorry I'm just following WHATISPOLITICS' lead in replying snarkily to comments

This isn’t politics . It’s dogma .

yeah i had to read 10x as much as i wanted to, especially for the forthcoming epsiode, that i’m still reading for…

just need periodic breaks - last time i was doing this for 9 months straight!

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 totally hear that! This was such a great vid, and I always look forward to your stuff. As a side question, I haven't read Bakunin, but I keep hearing Marxists dismiss him as authoritarian. The little I know about him makes this claim sound like nonsense, but is there any credence to this claim?

@@phithinker02 yes actually - sort of - despite his anti authoritarianism when it came to the state, he had this dumb idea that you needed a secret core of revolutionaries to push the society in this or that direction - honestly i forget - it’s not like state rule, but it’s like he wants him and his clique to still have disproportionate influence - not very well thought out and rather hypocritical

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 oh, I did read about that bit from a presentation on anarchism once (by Marxists who basically were criticizing anarchism). I thought that part sounded a bit like what anarchists do with affinity groups, but maybe it really is as conspiratorial as it sounds on its face.

@@phithinker02 i remember reading it in bakunin years ago thinking wtf is this?? but last i heard it was tom obrien referenced it a few times on alpha to omega

thanks - wait till you see the next one!

in the next episode i’ll be getting a lot deeper int what lenin was thinking and saying, and marx, and marx’ other followers, it’s super interesting to see the fucked up choices lenin made and why he made them, and how almost no one today is grappling with any of that, we’re either trying to make excuses for it or demonize his intentions instead of learning from it.

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Really glad to hear you say this. The left does itself no favours by not be able to discuss past socialist projects and important works objectively. I'm from an African country and trying to learn about China and the many transformations it underwent over the 20th century. Its ridiculous that any mention of Mao must be followed immediately with total condemnation and if not, the only other crowd are those that immediately jump to apologia.

@@MrOzzification exactly - the reason i made this video (and the one that will follow) is first to introduce normal people to socialist ideas, to dispel caricatures about socialism and communism and show the reasons for their appeal in the poorer countries, but then to get leftists to think about the mistakes that others have made so that we don’t repeat them. there is much to criticize in china and russia and all the other communist and socialist dictatorships, and i believe that in russia there were alternatives not taken that could have applied around the 3rd world - but if not for these regimes most of these countries would instead be variations of 3rd world banana republics with most of the populations illiterate and economies geared largely towards supplying rich countries abroad.

What left? Liberal is not left its center. If you are a real leftist in America the FBI will have you killed. Ask Fred Hampton.

@@wilsonpatterson6729 i don’t think anyone here is arguing against this

Well made, not well thought

some of it decently researched but . . . unfortunately quite a bit of room for improvement

Watch the video! Good analysis, though. You don't know much, but you're understanding the key points with Marxism-Leninism.

thanks! i needed a break after working on it 9 months straight - and yes as much as i criticize it, it’s very stimulating and a good read

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 that’s very understandable lol it seems like you work really hard on these. I’ll be joining your Patreon

@@cheezew1zz thank you, im always blown away that people want to give me their money

A major issue, and one that Lenin talked about is that he would’ve loved to have many parties, but that they immediately needed to produce for the war effort. So because of capitalist nations interfering or threatening, they had to resort to “authoritarianism” in order to defend themselves. This is almost always the reason why nations become “authoritarian”.

@@Agueroooo yeah I kind of agree. But that's not really an excuse for the continuation of that practice after the war.

Wow, this was great as usual and felt way faster than 55 minutes. I could follow your description of all the movements, ideological bases of communism, socialism and anarchism really well. I'm looking forward to hearing how an actual anarcho-communist or other anarchist society would or could function and what it would practically look like on a broader scale. Up until now, I've only had a hazy idea of it, or could only imagine it in isolated circumstances, cases or within the context of much smaller, closed societies that are not interlinked on a global scale with mass industrialization already being a given. Like for instance in the case of small utopian communities or immediate return foraging groups. Previously, I was also always confused by the concept of the "petit bourgeoisie", but this was explained really well. Now I get way better why people like my parents in law, or indeed many east Germans or other rural peoples continually vote against their own interests, despite struggling their whole lives under one form of oppression or another. They are simply not able to see how the same systems that oppress poor working class people living and working in close proximity to each other, also oppress them. It's basically like that quote about "temporarily embarassed millionaires" from Steinbeck.

thanks! yes part two coming up next!

thank you that’s exactly what i’m aiming for!

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 🤣

haha, i’d love to be on lex fridman, but i think the chances are zero for anytime soon - i actually think he’d find this series interesting, but i don’t see how he’d ever hear of it unless one of my viewers is friends with him or something! i think the channel would have to be like 10x at bigger at least to have a chance of him hearing about it. I really should be asking viewers/listeners who have hookups with bigger producers to recommend my stuff to them - the best thing that happened to the channel so far is when saint andrew mentioned one of my videos on his chat section, i suddenly doubled my audience overnight also i’m a housing lawyer, not a professional anthropologist or historian etc, so there might be an element of not being taken seriously. if you want to translate episodes that’s amazing - i have one guy putting out brazilian portuguese versions of the videos - if you want to make spanish captions and let me know how to add those to the videos that would be amazing, you can contact me by email and we’ll figure it out

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Well, we can only keep trying to give you a boost. I just linked this video on a comment in Fridman's Wolff interview. Hope at least some of his listeners give your material a shot. A while back, anyone could contribute their captions to videos that allowed it, but it seems that's not the case anymore. According to this video by YT itself, there's a few ways to add captions, but all have to be done from your account. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qKhppM9hsZbHhYU.html Maybe I could write a translated transcript and mail it to you. I'll think about it until I actually have free time to do the translating and then contact you. If you have any other idea, let me know over here. Wish you good health, rest, joy, and prosperity. See you around!

@@drarp same to you! and yes, you can send it to me and i can do it if you give me instructions - the amount of shit i have to do to post these and the audio versions and then respond to all the arguments - on top of actually making the videos and researching them is insane! so i want it to be as easy as possible for me! but very interested in having spanish and other versions

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 By the way, where can I find the Portuguese versions of your videos?

@@drarp hey - i made a mistake - the guy is translating them onto a blog - so it’s not the video - so far he’s done episode 4 only, but he plans to do the dawn of everything series and others: ominhocario.wordpress.com/2022/10/24/como-as-definicoes-politicas-moldam-a-realidade/

glad to be a happy surprise!

haha thanks - ironically the david graeber fanatics always yell at me YOU’RE MISSING ALL THE NUANCES!!!

you got baited by the clickbait…

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I think it's pretty smart, honestly. No force on earth has done more damage to communism than communists ("communists.") Maybe this goes some way in resolving the perception problem.

@@5ivearrows yes i agree, and that’s my aim - thanks!

@@5ivearrows If the video helps convince you to turn your back on centuries of massive successes by the blood sweat and tears of workers and communists alike. Was it really that different than a McCarthist screed? The result is the same: you are enabling capitalism.

yes, been working on it since i released this one! i already had a script for part 2 but i wanted to read a “little” more and it spiralled into reading like 2000 pages worth of books and articles and was surprised by what i was reading - also part 3 is coming… i think part 2 will be ready in about 2-3 weeks and part 3 a month later

ive ben working on it for 4 months straight… hopefully it will be out tomorrow

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I see I subscribed at the right time! On the meantime I'll be binge watching all your other videos.

thanks i appreciate that! don’t be afraid to cite your disagreements, it helps me know what things to address (or if i made any important mistakes!)

hey thanks! i make this series because i feel like there are no good ABC books for beginners. DoE is maybe worth reading as it might introduce you to a ton of subjects that you hadn’t heard of and it’s fun to read and then might get you to read more on it - and when you do you’ll realize how full of shit the book is! for egalitarian societies, maybe start with Jerome Lewis’ Egalitarian Social Organization Among HUnter Gatherers, and then use the bibliography to find other stuff you’re interested in

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks! I can already feel the creases in my brain deepening. Could you say Hi to my friend Darla, she's the one who introduced me to your show 👍

@@jack_snell ‘sup darla! if this show was a pyramid scheme, you’d get points

​@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Id b the girlboss at the top of the pyramid. I recommend this channel to everyone i have political convos with!!

@@darlatimewell3692 You're cool!

thanks! yes this take for some reason is very rare, though it’s been around since the beginning. hopefully i can help it become *the* main take!

Oooh, excellent question First thing to note to keep in mind, is that the formula for hierarchy is that you need some people to be able to control access to resources that other people need to survive. I talk about this in my anthropology and dawn of everything episodes. War is always hell, but but it’s a double edged sword when it come to egalitarianism. On one hand, when you’re being attacked it’s a good excuse to concentrate power and increase authoritarianism because the population will tolerate more than in normal times. So there’s always that tendency for that to happen - and sometimes it’s for efficiency at defence, and often it’s an excuse to concentrate power, and very often it’s both, kind of like how supply chain inflation is an excuse for companies to raise prices on products that have no supply chain inflation. On the other hand, war creates a big chunk of the population who knows how to use weapons and who has a high degree of solidarity. And the sacrifices made by the general population generate a high sense of entitlement for more of a share of resources because they just saved the elites’ asses. And they now know how to use guns. There are also spillover effects for womens’ equality because they take over a lot of production and meet eachother and form coalitions with which they can advocate for their rights. WWI was a huge factor in women’s suffrage, WWII was a huge factor in creating welfare state in the US and west, constant wars in ancient athens is what created the democracy there, war in spain made the anarchist revolution possible, even though it didn’t survive, WWI is what made the russian revolution possible, even though the second revolution turned into dictatorship and failed. So it depends on circumstances - war is often an excuse for concentration of power, but it’s also one of the biggest factors in creating more egalitarianism.

. 42 socialist countries that failed. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m9ugZNl-uLKVeZ8.htmlsi=RnbZU9b57W7XEEzI

Thats their only purpose in socialism. They dont really give a shit about them

wolff wasn’t saying that fridman doesn’t want any government or civilization! just that socialism would be better than capitalism.

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 According to your paraphrasing, he basically said "Well, civilization is against human nature...but surely we wouldn't want to do without civilization!" Basically that some changes are important enough to discipline ourselves for. While I maintain that socialism is not one of those changes, I'll admit my interpretation jumped the gun there. He wasn't saying that not having a socialist society is equivalent to not having a society at all...but from my end it did sound a lot like that. I guess I'm just so used to hearing Bastiat's Theorem from socialists that I tend to see it before it's there.

thanks, hope you get a lot out of it!

thanks, love to hear that!

yeah it really stands out given that he’s probably been asked that question hundreds of times over the years!

thank you!

it’s going to be a few more weeks - re-writing the scrips because I’m readining more stuff on it - i think it will be even more interesting…

we all know gijoe were the imperialist bad guys in real life!

thank you!

yes you’re right - you’re also the ONLY person (out of like 5 millions furious maniacs) who made this critique without insulting me! and yes, i think i’ll mention it a little next time. I didn’t include it because it’s often just an excuse - like it’s very real, and pushes all regimes towards authoritarianism, but since lenin they were inventing imaginary saboteurs and secret whites as enemies to blame for all protest.

thanks! working hard on it, tons to read…

honestly, even though i disagree with so much of it, and think he’s partly lost his mind, peterson is a lot of fun to listen to so can’t blame you! glad you’re enjoying my work!

@WHATISPOLITICS69 I recall a classroom lecture where he correctly identified the left/right, equality/hierarchy dichotomy, and simply proceeded to justify existing hierarchy. Then he turned fanatic/grifter. Anyhoo, yes, keep doing your thing! You're helping to facilitate real discourse, and it's appreciated

thanks! I made it because i felt like no one seems to have put it together in this way before

You forgot Trudeau and Arden in the thumbnail

@@paulatreides0777 but she’s such a babe

thanks - you can always use language any way you want - i’m choosing to stick with the 19th century use (socialism is the broader term, and communism is more specific) because i think that’s just a much more productive way of thinking about it. when you have competing definitions, you have to pick one, or invent a new one… see episode 4 for more on that, how i choose terms, and why etc

thank you! i will talk about that more in the future, but it’s going to be very general ideas, i have no detailed blueprint, and i don’t think anyone can really have one at this point

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I’m a software engineer without benefit of degree. I’ve make 6 figures and worked at Walgreens. Also I studied philosophy, mostly interested in the analytical. So I’ve seen the low and the high. I’m pretty motivated for the many and weak and against the few and the strong. I just re watched your latest video about socialism and I can’t tell you how re impressed I am with it.

thank you! i never thought of the videos as “generous” - but i guess it makes sense in terms of how much time they take etc - appreciated!

thank you! exactly, markets are a secondary issue to the main aim of ending or minimizing dependence relationships

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Dependence relationships (zero-sum relationships) are the result of monopoly. End alternatives, and the target population (the propertyless) have no choice but to sell their labor. The absence of alternatives was visible and palpable in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but not so since. Mass media, offshoring of parallel production in manufacturing that ended collective worker identity, and the emergence of identity-politics/culture as a weapon against class consciousness have produced a completely psychotic society. The American red staters are like the petite bourgeoisie in your video, and the blue staters are as loyal to power as the red staters but in the form of a labor aristocracy. Most anti-monopoly types are pro-capital, which is depressing. It's this single issue of eliminating alternatives that is the Rosetta Stone of political economy and social science. I haven't been this optimistic about a KZfaq channel in a long time. Once again, thank you.

hi! yes, most likely tomorrow or friday - i try to do them all on the same day, but it involves a whole separate time consuming process so i dont always have time to do them all at once

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Ok thank you, no problem

thanks! hope you like it, lots of people mad on reddit…

My thoughts precisely

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 which subreddit? I mean, if you want the world, or at least the country you live in, to be socialist and/or anarchist instead of capitalist with the goal of maximizing human freedom and wellbeing, we have to talk about examples of past socialisms to learn what to do and what not to do! Past experiments and Marxist-Leninist states are still one of my biggest hangups with the feasibility of socialism (I identify as one nonetheless). Where did they go wrong? What did they do well? Why dictators and shit and not mutual aid, co-ops, collective ownership, etc.?

@@theodore-gottlieb communism vs capitalism sub, and stupidpol sub - and on youtube comments! these crazy cult victims downvoted me like mad, im at like 81% now! but it’s still my most popular video at this stage of release, by like 4x. and yes, i agree with you - the next episode is going to explore why the russian revolution failed so that we can learn from the mistakes.

especially the points about 20th century socialism being more of an attempt at industrializing and kicking out foreign nations and that a lot of marxist dont seem to conceive of a communal or local communism is smth that ive thought about a lot

honestly the books that specifically focus on materialism are like 20 years old or more - it’s not a popular topic anymore - you can look up Marvin Harris’ historical materialism - it’s a bit outdated though. but if you just read good stuff you’ll see the materialism everywhere.

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I actually remember seeing the Harris book in an Oxfam bookshop near me so hopefully its still there. As a follow up: since these topics aren't discussed as much these days, is Harris' book likely to contain much in the way of flawed empirical data/arguments since it's from some time ago?

@@joop5415 that’s a problem that you’ll find in new work as much as in older work! but yes, harris got in some trouble for “massaging” data to fit his theories. his materialism was sometimes a bit ridiculous - like if the yanomamo had a bit more violence in one area vs another area, he would try to prove empirically that it’s because they had more meat or less women or whatever in that area. but in general he’s the top anthropologist in terms of consciously articulating materialist arguments. actually you should also look up “behavioural ecology” that’s basically a very materialist paradigm, where you assume that major cultural traits (like social organization) are an adaptation to environment. “cultural ecology” is an older version. there might be one book that summarizes it, but i don’t know it. The foraging spectrum by Kelley is an overview of hunter gatherer societies from a behavioural ecology perspective so that’d be interesting to look at as well - but the person explicitly arguing materialism is marvin harris.

yeah, i really want to break out of everyone just mindlessly copying 100 year old political identities and turning socialism and communism and anarchism into new identity groups…

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 The clarity with which you present these is impressive. I suppose that is difference between knowledge and understanding. Congratulations on 20K views! I hope your content reaches millions

@@paranoah1925 thanks - and i need to check out luna oi, never heard of them - and wow i never imagined the marxist leninist kids would get so upset at this…

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I would strongly suggest you approach Luna Oi's work with a veeeery critical eye. In my opinion, she is one of the classic ML types who tout nationalistic dictatorships as communism and twist almost every point of Marxist ideology to fit into their authoritarian framework. I wouldn't even consider her a socialist.

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Luna Oi is anti democracy

hey tom! your praise means a lot especially when it comes to this topic! ah, i was just projecting on to marx about the general strike, i hear about it so much that i assumed it originated in his era. and i will have to double check on the czechs… i might have halluncinated them into a statement that I read in a book that wasn’t meant to include them… looking forward to reading your book chapter by the way, very excited by that project!

The legitimacy of the 1948 Czech coup is still debated. The KSČ (The Czech communist party) won 38% of the vote a year before. There exist disclosed documents of Stalin urging the KSČ to seize power and the party used the Red Army as a threat when performing the coup. As far as I know, the coup was bloodless (Except for the only non-communist minister, who fell out of a window 2 weeks after the coup)

@@pyjonyr5029 super interesting thanks - that’s more or less what i had understood - there was a lot of grass roots support for marxist leninism all over europe right after WWII - but enough to sustain a revolutionary government with majority support and without the USSR enforcing it … my impression is that was only true in the poorer eastern countries like yugoslavia - but i def need to read more to know

@@pyjonyr5029 I keep telling people the solution to these problems are better designed window guards but people in Eastern Europe and Russia keep mysteriously falling out of windows. They even have a special word for it . . . defenestration.

thank you! it takes a long time!

thank you mr president!

glad you’re finding it useful!

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Hey,I wanted to know your opinion on this. You think social democracy is leftist? Where would you place it in the political spectrum

@@lalitthapa101 well the political spectrum is relative so it’s relative to the centre, which i guess is the sort of average of where power lies - so social democracy is on the left if you’re looking at the US, but it’s in the centre if you’re looking at Sweden, centre left if you’re looking at France etc. i actually hate the term social democracy because to modern ears it sort of equates capitalism with democracy - “we’re like socialisty, but democratic” which implies socialism isn’t democratic. i think “welfare capitalism” best describes what we call social democracy. Originally social democracy was just marxism! but it devolved over time…

thanks - i haven’t done a deep dive into it myself, but i’d like to do an episode on it - i linked to cockshott in the bibliography, found out about him from alpha to omega

The idea that the solution of this problem is "computer" is technological solutionism in its dumbest form.

@@sacha9593 well, I personally never said it was but I find it funny the level of pretentiousness one has to have to say we have super computers that can perform unheard of calculations and physics models but it couldn't come close to pretty accurately modeling small scale supply chains and gradually work in higher levels of inputs directly from individual areas of the market to the point of being able to pretty closely determine day to day economic adjustments. Especially considering the fact that we already have "markets" that do this to a smaller degree that are the size of the Soviet union at its highest point.

@@sacha9593 the problem is that you need a huge number of inputs in realtime to calculate demand and preferences over fast timeframes - “computer” does exactly that. “computer” solves all kinds of problems, which is why “computer” was invented. “wrench” also solves lots of problems. so does “calculator”

The pretentiousness is thinking you can manage the whole economy using computers while implicitly comparing people preferences to particules in some "physic models".

yes! and yes, i think people have sort if innate liberal vs conservative dispositions, and that PR political industry preys on this, but it’s style not policy. people with conservative dispositions often support left policy - like traditionally all those kansas quasi socialist farmers etc.

It is genetic? 😁 That's not very leftist

@@pinguinocomentador9743 haha, i said that people have liberal or conservative innate dispositions, but that’s not why they are socialist or capitalist or fascist or right wing or left wing - many socialist revolutionaries had conservative dispositions! those dispositions today track with mainstream left and right because of PR industry

you're fucking insane and I hope you stay far away from normal people You for one, are sure as shit bourgeois.

@@cole8834 what’s this all about?

good, we need more people spreading the good ideas!

amazing, that’s even more clear and degraded than the word “employee!”

hey, thanks - i always love hearing from you! and where’s your next video you’ve been working on stuff in secret forever now…. why do you say that about the commune? it was organized by “proudhonists” (basically anarchists) and blanquists (kind of vanguardist communists) - and anarchists often cite it as an example of what anarchism could look like. i’ve heard that a zillion times. and it was a communist system by their own description - what do you mean by it wasn’t this video is doing great minus being like 20% downvoted by stalinist cult kids who are giving me no rest for calling one party states dictatorships

​ @WHAT IS POLITICS? Yeah, my long upload absence is causing me big anxiety. I've been working on six videos, and I've basically finished five of them (a couple need some finishing touches). The final video I'm working on will be the first one that I release, it's a behemoth that will probably be like two and a half hours long. The Paris Commune never got around to transforming the economy, which remained capitalist. There were some workers' co-ops created, but the majority of the means of production stayed under control of capitalists. As for the political structure, my memory of it is kind of hazy, and I'm not super well informed, but I don't think it would qualify as anarchist. The Paris Commune was a working-class revolution, though, and had strong democratic tendencies, as well as many anarchists and socialists involved in it, so of course anarchists are supportive of the Paris Commune and have a mostly positive view of it. But not as being an anarchist society, but rather as something which had great potential. I'm not surprised there are anarchists saying it was an anarchist society but my guess is that in most cases they're not sufficiently informed on the Paris Commune and are just going by vague descriptions. Paris Commune had neighborhood assemblies and elected recallable delegates. Anarchists advocate that delegates stay in communication with the assembly that they're delegated from, in order to receive guidance, direction, and clear mandates. But it seems the delegates in the Paris Commune tended to act more like representatives, just doing their own thing. I'm not saying this was the case for every delegate and I'm not even sure if that level of detailed information is available. I haven't studied the Paris Commune in depth so I could be wrong but this is my impression from what I've learned, that the delegates behaved quite independently from the assemblies, that there was a disconnection. The official Commune government was a mix of authoritarian socialists (Blanquists), mutualist anarchists, and republicans. There was tension between those who wanted to boost the more democratic and grassroots power and those who wanted more centralized top-down authority in a small committee. These tensions never really resolved themselves as the Commune was crushed after a couple months. I think by the end of it there were even two different power groups (one of them the more authoritarian) each claiming to be the government? But I forget. Btw, I think all the downvotes are a good sign. It means the algorithm is bringing your video beyond the echo chamber and you have a greater chance of changing minds rather than preaching to the choir.

@@LuckyBlackCat the downvotes are all marxist leninist kids though, so i don’t know if that’s “outside the bubble” in the sense i was looking for! just another more ridiculous bubble… i think i need to make tik toks to reach normal people cause only crazy people like us watch hour long videos… ok i see what you mean about the commune - and yes, that’s all accurate, and i knew that, but i call it “communist” in the sense that that’s what they were going for, but didn’t have time to get there with the economics, and the political structure was representative, but like you described recallable delegates etc, a bit similar to the early soviets - ive heard many anarchists cite it as an example of a stateless society, and marx talks about the communards approvingly as having smashed the state from the getgo etc. but yes you’re right jeez 6 part series and 2.5 hours long first installment! no wonder you’ve been on the DL! can’t wait to see what you’re concocted!

​@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks! Most of the videos will be shorter than that though, lol. I was thinking more about the theory that Communist Party led revolutions after the Russian one were mainly interested in economic development and national independence than in communism. I'd never heard the theory before but it immediately made intuitive sense. So initially it felt like a light bulb moment for me. But then I considered it a bit more and started to think that perhaps this theory is overgeneralizing a mere tendency within these revolutions. I'm sure that the members of these Communist Parties were diverse in their political goals, and that there were certainly genuine communists among them. That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if development out of poverty and national independence were the foremost goals for a large portion of members, perhaps even the majority. But I'd be cautious about overstating this. To reach a firm conclusion you'd have to do an opinion survey on the members of these parties, or at least their leaders, and I doubt that kind of research was ever done. So basically, I think it's a good theory so long as it's not overstated.

so far they’re not though, so as long as they aren’t i really want to avoid it for as long as possible. i’m also not super interested in having to worry about whether I said the wrong word or phrase on the episode i worked on for 3 months in case it gets demonetized etc

I think it really was a libertarian impulse based on his theoretical understanding. For Marx, imo, socialism was an emergent process due to the concrete practices of the organized working class attempting to build a free classless society in accordance with their current local conditions. This necessarily meant an open ended approach, instead of a one size fits all schema. Now i do think more generally applicable rules, a sort of framework for developing 'best practices' for socialization can be and needs to be developed. Which is why I got interested into looking into cybernetics as giving a general framework to theoretical and workout oraganization problems that will vex socialists as they did before.

i think some non monetized videos have ads - like if you’re doing cover songs or have copyrighted material. but i watch many videos that have no ads, so i assume it’s that way with mine. if anyone sees ads on my videos let me know

@@WHATISPOLITICS69 have not seen any

@@darecarrasquillo good! thanks!