Does she have her own show or something, I really dig her more colorful take on things!

@@GubekochiGoury she has a podcast called The Antifada

Another Agnostic exactly. that's why I'm an anarchist now.

Either we revolt or none of us have great great grand children.

@@johncoursey2582 great great grandchildren? Shit, dude, you're way too optimistic.

How would a societal collapse caused by a revolution help avert climate catastrophe?

We've been adapting to climate change since the beginning of time. Stop being ridiculous.

Louis Williamson anarcho-communism I think would be the better way to go.

King Hokum you seem to be unaware of the current socialist project underway that aims to build structures adjacent to and separate from the state. Also, I never said I myself was skeptical of class consciousness.

I would support a Marxist state without the bs class consciousness and identity politics. If state radically changed its position in respect to the environment, ending student loans-free college tuition, medicare for all, dismantling the military industrial complex and getting troops out, higher minimum wage etc., all this along with a more progressive judiciary and I would be very happy. It is the perverse postmodern element of gender, femininity and race of Marxism that turns me off it.

Tom C excuse me? all of those identities are part of class struggle. you're not fighting for liberation if you're not fighting for everyone's liberation. To fully understand class struggle, you have to understand the different social struggles around identities that different people experience and how they all the back in to economic class struggle. Christ, talk about lacking class consciousness.

King Hokum because you're ideologically blind and aren't bothering to actually look.

Hell yes. But what the caller says could turn bad too. We need more democracy ... everywhere!

Cyberpunk Spinoza that’s what socialism is

Cyberpunk Spinoza what he describes is synonymous with democracy

And then ship them elsewhere

@@TheSpartan3669 That will make our movement grow. I'd be proud to be a martyr. It worked out great for Christianity.

@@matthewcondie4052 Calm down. Its a joke

@@TheSpartan3669 We've been persecuted for over 100 years. It's not a joke.

Also revolution doesn't need to necessarily be violent. It can be democratic, and I think it will probably have to be in the most powerful parts of the world; US, UK, Germany, Brazil etc. There might be violent protests and riots and such but the core will be a democratic process.

good communists dont deny their own agency and understand the need for political action and building of a worker oriented party. no learned communist would think sitting around with their thumb up their ass until the next depression comes is going to bring about communism.

@@6obert-905 ridiculous strawman. capitalism will bring about the revolution BECAUSE it forces people to agitate. no one argues for what you are talking about.

@@mahoulo612 you can find some real vulgar anti political communists on the internet. no irl communist would do so bc obv by the act of actually working in their communities their obv already overcoming such erroneous ideas. but yea we need to start working now to build the conditions of revolution even if they dont exist rn but yea I dont think well ever be able to just advocate and talk our way into revolution were going to push our way there (if we ever do in time) by working now in the conditions that exist now and not in some idealized world. I think we agree my b if I came off hostile.

@Auric no a democratic government and get this a democratic police force accountable to the people and democratic workplace. you can go fuck off with you disingenuous bullshit. if you really cared and were anti centralization then you wouldn't allow 40hrs of every week to be spent under a unelected dictator and let cops brutalize the people and get off unaccounted for let them handle their own investigation. are you trying to be stupid or do you actuallt believe capitalism is democratic lmfao.

I think it's because the answer to that is "Ok, how ya gonna do that?" Followed by "I'm not sure".

More like Democrats: We have 8 major issues Republicans: Everything was perfect in the 1950s or 1850s depending on who you ask. Let's go back to then! All problems are made up and we should never fix anything.

read Rosa Luxemburg, an anti-Leninist Communist

@@zacharyfrancis5852 I know, the discretion is between democratic centralism, I'm all against it. But I'm also against the state and for a revolutionary dictatorship of the workers by sabotage to form a decentralized autonomous democracy

@@mrcaustic2495 --- civil disobedience, protest and Union strikes is terrorism ? OK. Whatever

@@zacharyfrancis5852 Not only do you support Muslims but you support the upheaval of the entire nation and morphing it into a communist hell hole.

@KloutKulture Solidarity forever Ⓐ☭

Solidarity

KZfaq Commenter taxes don’t taste as good

@Salmon how would a violent not-revolution solve that?

No we arent. Capitalism is good If People Like Sanders are on the top of it and we have a system Like in Europe. Communism didnt Work. And it wont work. The system is Just Bad. Marx Made the best Analysis of the capitalism system but Communism is Not the answer. The mix socialism and Capitalism is.

@@greenlight2323 lol socialism is incompatible with capitalism. socialism doesn't mean big government.

@@greenlight2323 European capitalism is collapsing and far right fascists are rising there as well. European capitalism is not the answer. Capitalism is the problem and socialism is the solution.

@@skeletrexbonebrigade1271 I am living in Switzerland and Social democracy is the Mix of socialism and Capitalism. There you Go. Its great. Its nice. Its perfect.

@@greenlight2323 I wouldn't mind that in the USA. I like capitalism and a little bit of socialism.

Revolution can take many forms. As much as I'd like to see the people whip out and dust off the guillotine and make 45 a foot shorter from the top... Something more peaceful seems preferable and more likely :P

@@GubekochiGoury Something more peaceful is an impossibility, the system is built specifically to prevent that from being achievable. No fundamental structural change has ever come without revolution in history, and it never will. It's just a fact. You're right though it can take many forms and not all of them are desirable, but that doesn't make it any less necessary or inevitable.

@@Keldrath Um that s annoyingly dogmatic. Marx never talked about the necessity of violent revolution. "revolution" in marxian lingo just means a change in the fundamental relations of production. It has no violence in its definition what so ever. By these assumption your sentence " Fundamental structural change is not possible without revolution." is just tautological.

@@brianel-khoury885 I'm not even talking about Marx, I'm talking about changes in the fundamental structure of society which have always come via revolution, which is always going to be violent. Politics itself is inherently violent. Whatever violence a revolution brings will pale in comparison to whats already being inflicted on us daily by the status quo.

“Peaceful” never happens. Allende was elected in Chile. What happened to him? He was brutally murdered in a CIA backed coup (for being a socialist) and replaced by the fascist bastard Pinochet.

It's not either/or, it's both/and.

agreed.

You basically just said "allow the retards to ramble".

We can do it comrade. Revolutionary conditions do not always exist but when they do we need to strike while the iron is hot.

you are nuts.. when in history has the lower class achieved anything

@@skodalaskoda8754 lol clown, the lower class, the working class is the reason anything ever is achieved or produced

@@Lyric1235 wow

Privyet677 let’s just hope that as resources shrink and things get more dire people get educated fast

social ownership of the means of production?

@transylvanian For basic necessities the market system is wholly inadequate, but I'd be open to some form of market socialism for discretionary items.

transylvanian I'm gonna sound dumb here, but how does that work with TVs, candy, and all that shit. Like I get human need and rationing for necessary things like housing and healthcare, but how do you judge need when it comes to those uneccesary goods? Why not just let a small private sector exist for all that stuff, and make sure theyre all heavily unionized?

@@berniehoe9960 it doesn't have to be that the government takes over the business. You could solve that by changing how the board of directors gets elected. Currently the shareholders elect them. You could change that and make it so that the workers elect them and shareholders just get an additional representative (currently in Germany it's the other way around - workers just get a bit of representation while the shareholders get the rest) In addition you could enforce that unions of all involved parties need to play a central role in trade deals.

transylvanian there's a difference between tankies and MLs. Not all MLs are tankies

Agreed. I want to know what he was going to say, but (for the benefit of the doubt) maybe they kept it off so it was more believable than what he actually said? Either way, we need to redefine what "success" means before any of this can happen. And I don't know that we have the time for that.

I’d rather get my comrades ready for an Anarchist revolution. Vanguard Parties aren’t the best for workers.

@@peperlover99 we can talk later. First capitalism must go. The provisional government period will be critical.

lol

@Apples S We're not done; we're just getting warmed up. It took 200 years of failure before capitalism became the global hegemon. We shall have the last laugh.

@Auric I don't want to start a business. I want all people to contribute to the wealth of all humanity, instead of a venture directed for my own personal psychopathic delusions.

Untrue. If I design a new engine, take on the risk of funding a business based off that engine and then hire a bunch of workers to build more how is it that the workers "produced" all the wealth?

​@@TheSpartan3669 The capitalist forces you to sign over all of your intellectual property rights to them.

@@matthewcondie4052 You mean the communist? Preservation of intellectual property is considered a driving force for capitalism. And why would I work to design something if I can't profit from it?

@@TheSpartan3669 The capitalist profits by taking it from you. Either you give it as a condition of your employment or you seek a venture capitalist. In either case the capitalist takes it and sells it for doing nothing.

Matthew Condie It’s not perfect yet.

@@deborahhoffman7394 Our next revolution will be perfect.

@Monkeys on Wheels Real deal. Cross my heart and hope to die.

That'sTerrorists, Bro! The whole time he was making his points, i kept thinking about the hurdles of the suffrage movement. Yet i think that was the sort of thing he meant. And as you pointed out, focusing on the function of structure is the smallest bite to chew. And clearly over the years many agencies have changed into a place outside of legislative power. And as those who implement the laws passed by congress....Special interests from every major sector seem to have a nice grip on what/how legislation is done.

Jesus, I'm inclined to agree with you.

Right, we need total liquid democracy.

FIrst, the revolution would be crushed. If not that, it would be followed by a military coup. If not that, it would be followed by a rightwing paramilitary coup. If not that, there would be a complete breakdown of government, and domination of the country by small rightwing militias. Learn some history and build a more robust leftist movement like we had in the 20th century, particularly the 1930s.

IMO we have already run out of time for this. We are too engulfed in worship of the dollar to have the existential change needed to get away from capitalistic amorality. Given more time and a greater desire of self preservation, we could change minds by reestablishing the value of "success" to be something less material, but - unfortunate in the current circumstance - we need to focus on survival first.

Which, scary enough as it is, is why the Right can't have a monopoly on arms. Not saying that background checks and gun control isn't necessary, but it's really dangerous to totally disarm working-class minorities when we have a diet-fascist government.

Revolution by force is not an option unless the military sides with us. In either case uprisings by the masses will be squashed before it becomes a threat by the government out of self preservation.

@@robroy340 I don't know that I believe that about right wing vs left wing. I think as more people go into debt and use the military as a means of repaying it (school, etc) there is a growing population of the military that is willing to fight for the underprivileged. That said if you consider "right wing" as "a person who believes in the necessity of guns" then you are right... but we will then be talking about different things.

Ok, but let's not actually overthrow the government. I don't trust the faceless leaders of the revolution to re-write the constitution

​@@jrizaac What if it the revolution functioned on a principle of direct democracy?

@@NoNoNah306 I find it hard to believe that a functioning democratic structure would exist among revolutionaries. Also, direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy is very concerning as it allows for mob rule. We need to elect people to lead on behalf of us, the same principle even applies in worker coops

@@jrizaac George Orwell gave an account of how ground level democracy worked among revolutionaries in Homage to Catalonia. Essentialy even at a military level there were votes among squads and decisions would be questioned rather than followed blindly. Of course for fast reactions situations you would neccesarily need leaders to shout orders and the like and they would be elected unanimously, but they weren't considered above the people who elected them and the power they held would be limited to what was neccesary, temporary and questioned. Surely where direct democracy has the dangers of mob rule, representative democracy has the risks of corruption. If you genuinely think it's essentially bad for a majority to rule why have democracy at all? and not simply rule of whoever scores best on an exam or something of that nature?

@@NoNoNah306 I do not at all think majority rule is bad, I think it's good. But I still want to have representative democracy run by majority rule when it comes to voting, which is why we need more voting rights and electoral reform. We need serious reform to remove corruption in the government which is why we need progressives to take over the Democratic Party. I think if the future continues looking grim where we no longer get the reforms we desperately need, yes we may need to consider revolutionary action as a way to force the ruling class to reconsider. I think revolutionary action is only justified when the majority are fully on board though or at least sympathetic to it. If we have a revolution where most of the populace are not down with it (like now), it can have serious consequences. They'll be a huge reactionary movement which the ruling class will easily exploit in order to suppress the rebellion. It will actually move us toward fascism.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

>Marxist >Richard Wolff pick one lmao

@@Baconator1368 Richard Wolff is a Marxist though, he says so himself.

ME TOO

Everything you just said was stupid.

Sam definitely

Yes

Because he's nervous to tell where he is in the political spectrum because of the stigma. I expected him to be a Marxist but he's a Marxist Leninist which is the polar opposite of Steve Bannon, who is an "evangelical" capialist Leninist. Leninism is in short an ideology that is about "burning the world down in order to rise from the ashes like a Phoenix in our desired image. In Bannon's case that's rich white Christians, in Marxist Leninism it's eradicating capitalism and turning it into bolshevik socialism, aka communism. Both are too extreme because what one needs is balance in capitalism versus socialism. That is a social democracy. In truth Bernie Sanders IS a social Democrat and not a democratic socialist! He is pro small businesses, pro trade, pro union and he is NOT against wealth, just against excessive wealth concentrated within a very small group of people. This gentleman on the phone, although he is absolutely right about the issues, is evidence of how broken the system is around the world. Because I have to be upfront about this: the tools that allowed us to rebuild our nations after WWII (I'm Dutch) were varieties of communism/socialism. The east was communist, a part of Spain (Catalonia) was anarchistic (and surprisingly extremely successful!)while the northwest was socialist/communist. Redistribution of money was necessary in order to rebuild our cities, villages and communities, identify and bury our fallen (including our and our allie soldiers) rebuild our complete infrastructure, clear the country of unexploded bombs, mines and other explosives and so on.

@@exoticgirl1 steve Bannon is just a fascist, not a leninist. Marxist-leninists believe in a vanguard party-guided revolution to overthrow capitalism and to use the state to manage the economy until a time when it can wither away and attempt to achieve communism while social democrats believe capitalism can be reformed by achieving leadership within the existing state

Papa Lenin weird since Michael Brooks is a Marxist and Richard Wolff has been in their studio

@@Zhicano can we not confound Marx and Lenin please. thank you

Jonida Sanço huh?

underballbutter that’s if they stand together, like unions did. America likes every man for himself. Unity is seen as bad. Everything this transnational criminal enterprise of Putin’s is against. Anything they hate, we must do.

underballbutter he wasn’t advocating for armed uprising.

lol

😂😂

@@idkdk569 Keep voting harder, lol. That definitely works

Not just me that thinks that, eh.

inciting violence against TOS

TOS?

@@alexjav21 ?

@@davidjay7116 youtube terms of service

@@alexjav21 you making no sense...

Can you explain

peperlover99 --- very good point. Someone actually reads, I see

@@WilliamMohamad-uv5fi --- Marx never wrote about how to build a society. In fact, he spent a lot of his time bitterly criticizing those who wanted to design a new system, calling them "Utopian". Lenin and other right-wing charlatans came along, stole the mantle of his name, and pushed forward into uncharted territory. They misused numerous terms and often blatantly ignored earlier Marxist writing.Then Stalin launched a war upon domestic Marxists and leftists, his top enemies, and dragged the country far Right. This in very brief summary is the point. I can offer a bibliography if you're interested.

A synonym for failure.

@@InternetMameluq a failure because of outside forces, not the method itself.

@@ComradeLavender Everything you wrote after 'a failure' was a waste of keystrokes. "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

@Salmon 'Rob Roy you aren’t going to die from climate change, let’s be real here; if you live in the west that’s especially true' Thousands already have, and those numbers are rising. We're seeing a glimpse of the carnage that will come. There's a damned good chance you're going to die from climate change. Yeah it's not as bad as gun violence, but it will be, if not worse. You think that apocalyptic storms that are on the rise don't have a fucking death toll? Puerto Rico already has suffered an irrecoverable loss on a national scale similar to the potato famine in Ireland, a loss I remind you, that has yet to be recovered from in terms of population.

@Salmon 'but still, that's all in the "third world", not in the west' 1. No, it's the 'Near East', it's BARELY not the West. There are countries in the Middle east that extend INTO the west. So wrong. 2. That's the Second world, mostly, and there's more first world in those regions than third world. It's everything EXCEPT third world. 'temperatures are going to be on average 4 degrees fahrenheit warmer by 2050. that's not good. but that's not going to cause the collapse of civilization.' Uh. I don't think you know what you're talking about. Yes, that's going to cause the collapse of civilisation. You know that the threat of climate change isn't the temperature increase, but the CLIMATE change, right? Sir, I'm not going to read the rest of what you wrote, I don't mean to offend you, but you are greatly unqualified to be talking about this, and you have a lot of research to do. For now you should be listening, and asking questions, not making statements.

@RJDA suck my pole. he is absolutely based

No, the opposite it true. The specifically want you to have a pre-planned comment and not just improvise, their call system even tells you when you call.

Rosa Lyudpavli You are making me angry with your corrections, pal.

Phil You know the same people who like Sam ceder aren’t the same people who care about msigendering

@@pimpdan241 Thanks for the response. I appreciate the opportunity to explore this issue. Sure, but you'd still likely be stuck with several generations for whom pre-revolutionary thinking and living were a given. As the cliche goes, people don't change their minds. They die and are replaced by younger people with better ideas. Hence the perception that people get more conservative as they get older. They don't, they just stay the same as society shifts around them. Schools would be different after the revolution, but most people out of school (which would be most of the population) would already be set in their pre-revolutionary ways. Perhaps most viciously, corporate psychopath and other high-social dominance folks geared toward finding and exploiting systems for their own benefit would simply switch lanes and start trying to put themselves on top of the new one -- assuming, of course, that they wouldn't be in charge of the revolution, having seen the movement as their best shot at maximizing their own power and status.

Ye but the government needs to be reformed either way at the rate they move you would need to reform before even fully thinking through such a process in reformation.

Well that's what the re education camps are for. Also book burnings can't forget those.

"the social revolution" is therefore a very powerful term

So based. Love this guy. Arm the proletariat. Rosa Luxenberg would agree. Reformism hasn’t historically worked. Although, I won’t knock you for striving for reform. Solidarity above sectarianism and all else. Y’allidarity, Your favorite Texas Marxist. We out herrrrrreee. ✯ ✯ ✯ 🤠☭ ☭ ☭

21st century Marxism with the introduction of a new AI centrally ran economy that eliminates human error, greed, and corruption. I hate Amazon, but imagine the economy running as efficient as Amazon monopolizing monster.

@RJDA 0704 yes, based

@@classwarhooligan923 only unbased thing you said, don't have a central command, have each additional level of authority by elected by the level under that

@@muscularclassrepresentativ5663 …and have delegates rather than trustee representatives. 🤙🏻

I watched the full show. It got really embarrassing for the caller, and even somewhat for Jamie when they could not say a word about the plan. My guess is Jamie clipped this video and didn't want to add that in.

That’s why I watch this show, besides Sam being entertaining; he’s extremely well informed and informative

Her name is Jamie

@@dimtool Yeah but why use her name when he can dismiss her as "that woman"

@@dimtool it doesn't matter what her name is.

@@JackFury I've been watching the majority report since 2015 and I couldn't care less what her name is. If you think it's simply because she is a female you are dumb as fuck. It took me the longest time to learn Michael's name as well. You often hear her spouting nonsense in the background and even Sam has looked annoyed with her when she calls for communism. I don't care about her name because #1 she is a nobody on a fairly obscure YT channel (no offense to sam) and #2 because I think she says dumb shit all the time. If you want to defend her beliefs that's one thing but don't come at me with that bs. I wasn't even trying to attack her personally, I was simply making an observation that she calls for the communist revolution all the time. Are you denying that she calls for communism or are you saying she is right to do so?

They’re dead in the water because every other politician is using lobbyists. Remove the lobbyists and the playing field is leveled.

@@Colddirector But you can't remove them due to a judicial decision made on a less conservative SC

Getting a bill through congress is half the battle. Half of the lobbying takes place at the agency in charge of implementing a bill. Not that it’s an aligned movement as what is lobbied also can attack a holding companies competitors.