Why did I get this video? Give me all your money and get in the salt mine right now!

I think what you highlighted at the end is very crucial. A gift based society functions on obligations. If you have received a gift from someone you are in a sort of debt to the gift donor. In a communist society you dont owe anything equal in value to anyone for receiving what you need (…“to each according to their need“). You only have to contribute as much as you can, not as much as was given to you like in a gift based society („to each according to their ability...“)

You shouldn't claim that communism isn't, or shouldn't be, associated with the "communist regimes" of the USSR and so on, and then constantly use the aesthetics of the Soviet Union. If you don't believe in what the soviets and similar believed, then don't use their words and symbols, otherwise people will (reasonably) think you're advocating for what they advocated. And if you do believe in similar things, then hiding it behind novel redefinitions is just clumsy sophistry. In this case, why not simply defend the idea that hierarchies are unnatural (which seems to be the main point of the video)? What's the use of going through so many hops redefining communism?

It's all semantics. You could just as well call it Anarchism. No ruler, egalitarian communal structure with mutual aid as the basis. I mean, Laozi talked about it in Daodejing, he never used these modern terms, and, in fact, I'd argue that, while they're similar in essence, what Laozi talked about was still not the exact same thing. Early Greek city-states weren't exactly the same either, despite being democratic. I'm from the eastern Caucasus, and my people used to have these, what Russians called, "free societies." Which was basically just self-governing villages, where elders were elected into administrative roles but held no real power. Essentially egalitarian (unless you count strict gender roles and age hierarchy). I think you're giving either too much or too little credit to the term "Communism" and whoever invented it. We might as well just call it "natural organization" or "primitive democracy" or something along those lines. What those French philosophers envisioned in the 18th century (or whenever it was) wasn't really just them reiterating what people have known for centuries. I think it was in some ways an arrogant assumption that they're inventing something entirely new, and in some ways it differed from that primitive democratic organization, by sort of being the same thing on steroids. I think because of this the title comes off a little clickbaity, and the way you phrased your argument loses most of the audience (definitely lost me) in like the first minute. And that's probably why you received this many dislikes. God, I hope KZfaq doesn't delete my long-ass comment.

Good video overthinking, unfortunitley Dunbar's number proves why communisim cant work in modern societies. but for small scale societies it absolutely can

Communism is when you throw out all the writing on communism to redefine it to a single catch phrase and use that to argue that all altruistic actions are communism. Communism is when the male black widow lets itself be eaten by the female, communism is when the lion decides not to eat the other lions cubs actually, communism is when mom makes you chicken nuggets. It's a joke to just take basic moral philosophy terms and concepts then scratch them out and replace them with your political belief and present it as the motte to your actual ideological bailey. This video is anti-informative. Everyone who has watched it, including me, is now dumber for it. This is so nonsensical that you could easily write an similar screed implying that all altruism is actually just capitalism as many capitalist bros have done for generations.

word salad for "sometimes people are nice to each other" which supports no argument

commuism is when people existed? 1:02

seriously what a dishonest video "hand me the wrench" is not a communist statement, you are getting paid to do the work or you own the thing you are working on. what a narrow view.

Fernand Braudel is laughing at this

What an extreme redefining and pushing of definitions. You cannot redefine an ideology as a core human behaviour.

I have not read this book that you are referencing, but it seems to be a relatively straightforward idea. In the past, of course and in many ways today we would call it altruism, neighborliness, Golden rule, or good old Christian 'love thy neighbor' stuff essentially. It seems the word communism was used largely for shock value, which I'm not inherently against but of course goes against the general understanding of the word Communism being associated with egregious human rights violations, which ultimately, using the definition you're mentioning, would be the opposite of "communism". I think that generally a hierarchy based on ability is a rather natural one. But hierarchies are almost always abused by those at the pinacle and sometimes by those at the bottom or in between. Both ends though are generally betraying that idea of neighborliness and since we are not at the point of changing human nature essentially all systems will fall short of their ideal as seen with Communism and Capitalism. So, could I say that the argument is essentially when people are altrusitic the world is better and when theyre not, it's worse? That's a rather simple argument but not one I disagree with. Let me know if I actually missed the point.

Letting women have opinions was such a stunning mistake that historians will deny it ever happened.