please add subway surfer gameplay i cant concentrate.

❤

you should upload a copy of this video to the internet archive

that's not very socialist behaviour... selling yourself out to capitalist pigs comrade

a thing you could do is adding time stamps to the video

hungary, im guessing?

​@@explosionbruh1875you can thank Orban for that. He is bad, acting simmilarly to his pal the Tsar Putin, but still communism (as it was) certanly wasnt better. Just ask the older ppl to clearly remember how it was to live in a "fear" driven society. For one, in those times you would very fast end up in jail for writing this kind of "anti-state" comments.

seems lithuania to me

@@maspalfiker Lol Orban isn't good but he's no worse than previous post-communist Hungarian leaders. The older people miss the Kadar era.

@@scottya3615 the older ppl seam to forget how they had to hide their true opinions on their leaders and the moment they wanted more freedom, they felt the rage of the USSR communist tanks on the streets of Budapest.

Very impressive of you to be able to read these sources, even if you don’t fully read all of them.

>"socialist" economics >looks inside >state capitalism (militant social democracy at best) :|

When the comment with sources is longer than the entire comment chain you know you got a historical materialist workin

@@knowledgeanddefense1054 Ultraleft trying to not despise all AES countries in intransition phase challenge(10000% impossible, already lose):

@@Randomvietnamdude Not a counterargument, revisionist :)

Not really, but it is a good thing he posted it.

Nobody who denies the content of the video will watch it

save the mp4 guys

Bruh this guy just posts for attention

@@naroga7757 he spends practically no time in this video on promoting himself. The vast majority of it is him quoting and paraphrasing others work, and not using personal pronouns. The fact that you came to that conclusion suggests that you didn't actually watch the video.

Too bad they absolutely ruined their biology sector. I would have loved to see what they could have contributed like they did to astrophysics

USSR's ideology in fact is the largest influence on FDR's New Deal programme.

Fakemoonlanding

​@@Go-lovaworse is when Myth Busters prove they landed on the moon WITHOUT GOING TO THE MOON!!! 😂🤣

Which reactor design contaminated large areas of Ukriane and Belarus?

You got it good. They taught me only: 1. The Bolsheviks took over Russia in 1917. Why? Unrest. 2. Socialism collapsed in the 90s. Why? Just because.

They didn't even teach me about the shoe thing in my years of school

And what other things have happened during the time? Other than atrocities...

@@antiheroent.3728 I meant Russian history, not the US.

​@@shadowcween7890Actually, I'm not sure if it was both shoes or only one, but I do know it wasn't a Shoe Phone, which didn't come along until a few years later.

Nobody said that no socialism will work, look at Scandinavia, you’ve got democratic socialism, that doesn’t have a planned economy, but a capitalist one; literally the richest countries in the world (GDP, GDP per capita, wages, etc.), but you also have a bad idea of socialism, that was extended in the East : authoritarian, planned economy, little to no personal freedom, etc.

​@@mariopopa1350capitalist countries that their capitalist democracies were forced into having more rights for their populations due to being so close to the soviet union, for the population saw the advencements socialism had in their border. in the last few decades without such preassure those governsments are rapidly decreasing their rights and exploiting other countries

tricke-down economics is a myth. there is no reason for a capitalist to increase wages instead of acupulating more capital, and every time another one of the cyclical crisis affects capitalist institutions the rich gets richer and poor gets poorer

@@mariopopa1350 ". . .doesn't have a planned economy. . ." then it isn't socialism.

​@@mariopopa1350 there wasn't enough computational power back to make a fully planned economy work , nowadays tho ?

Yes but we shouldn’t be blind to it’s problems. Praising it’s success but we have to be critical of their mistakes.

@@icantaimpg3d776 the guy is talking about infrastructure, social net, job security, you answer with methods of statehood which were present even before communism to help realize the truth root of civilians beeing killed and the solution for it is not to withold relocation of wealth to the important things this planet and its inhabitants need.

Did the us kill your country like they did to the USSR?

they are boomers people get nostalgic about everything given enough time

​@@belstar1128 say gwa gwa

Petrograd*

@@keltoislavi St Petersburg was only called Petrograd from 1914 to 1924

🗿

What about all the countries where homosexuality has never been considered a crime in the first place?

Technically speaking homosexuality wasn’t decriminalised in the way you think so basically the bolsheviks inherited the imperial constitution (which had anti homosexual laws) and got completely rid of it and started drafting up a new one so for some time it was “decriminalised” but it later returned under stalin I believe?

@@automat8774 Well, quite. However, this particular debate is about decriminalization, and you cannot decriminalize something that's not a criminal offence to begin with. But, good point.

@@NorthKoreaDefender I'm just going on what was said in the film. Might I ask you, incidentally, how you think that I think homosexuality was decriminalised? I have no independent evidence of what happened in the field. As far as I'm aware, only one country has ever decriminalised homosexuality and then criminalised it again, and that was Serbia (1858-1860 and then again from 1994)

@@grahamvincent6977 Alot of people think that the USSR decriminalised homosexuality because they truly respected lgbtq rights but thats kind of inaccurate because back then nobody really thought like that. Of course the socialist countries were way ahead of their time but you cant forget it was a conservative country who just started to elevate themselves from centuries of feudalism so it isnt weird that the majority of people wouldnt be supportive of those ideas.

Hopefully not the video

Shame ya'll seemingly forgot that communism has no state, no class, no wage labor, no commodity production and no private property.

Nice work, comrade

A distinguished one with some based asf points if you ask me. Likewise man!

I think that person might be chemicalmind

​​​​@@BalkanOdyssey_zdravo druze odlican video dali bi mogli neki videji u buduce da budu na srpski da mozemo I mi sa balkana da se edukujemo I da edukujemo mlade da svi videji bas ne budu na engleski vec na nasem jeziku poneki vedeji ako moze ??

KZfaq automatically saves where you left off when you close out the browser or app

@@FeiFongWang well shit doesnt do that for me apparently

What lol

Screenshot the time stamp

Noted. I'm constantly struggling with finding a balance in my format, but I'll keep it in mind. Future videos really should be shorter (around 20mins), but this one unavoidably turned out into a full-out documentary

erdekes gondolat. kar h nem igaz. az atlag ember a 60-as evektol kezdodoen joletben elt magyarorszagon. csak agymosott fideszes, populista emberek szidjak Kadart. ha tenyleg a szocializmusban nottel volna fel, akkor az alapveto haztartasi kellekek az atlag aron alul megkaphattad, ugyanis ez volt nagyreszt a lenyege Kadar politikajanak.

"nyugati media tiltott volt" hallottal a TTT-rol? volt cenzura, de azert ez egy picit tulzas amit leirsz.

1960-ban kb. 10 millioan eltek a kis orszagunkban. ez azt jelenti, h 1 millio embert kihallgattak egytol-egyig. ez mar majdnem rosszabb a szovjetunio statisztikajanal.

amugy minden amit mondtal vagy propaganda vagy csak szimplan buta faszsag. olvass egy picit.

У вас вся страна не могла позволить себе стиральные машины или только некоторые семьи?

Bad take. Eastern Europeans should compere themselves with who they would be if they were capitalist.

@@qwerty-tv9wc Again...comparison with themselves, not others. You're missing the point.

​@@BalkanOdyssey_Comparing czechia now vs then, everyone I know agrees that life here greatly improved. Honestly I don't think there was any other country for which socialism did less than for Czechoslovakia.

Ancestors? It *started* 100 years ago for Russia and like 75 years ago for eastern Europe. Fuckers are still alive, how are they ancestors? 🤔

Yea it is sad, but they paved the way for future revolutions. The bourgeois revolutions also failed many a time.

Once the US Empire falls, in this multipolar world, we shall have victories once more, comrades! ❤

Definitely not during our lifetime. Crapitalism still has a century or two in it. We're barely entering digital fascism at this point, tons of potential for the exploiters there. Maybe our kids will have a chance though, if they survive WW3.

I feel despair everyday because how tight the life has become and with so limited options, with less purchasing power or safety net... I joined a union in the country i currently work... Greetings from Romania!

you think all Poles are anti Socialist mob?

My cousin's grandpappy was graped by a Soviet orc! /s

Well the socialist goverment in Poland was quite incompetent, and only supported by a minority of the population.

​my mothers grandparents were exterminated by nationalists and the red army rescued them. btw how many jews were slaughtered and graped by poles during pogroms across the centuries? its suddenly not that nice when it happens to u right?

@@zubrifikusummuk What are you talking about? Are you Isreali or what? We rescure jews from that,not helping germans. If you relay on Isreal leaders and Politicians then sorry but they lie as hell just to put us in the same place as everyone who don't agree with there Zionist ideas over Europe

It’s useless saying this to commie larpers, it goes right over their heads. Modern communists are similar to flat earthers…

With german money

@@ayhan4472 and Germany got rich with American money, so fucking what?

With those 3 words you just explained why capitalism is vastly superior to communism

Yes, and?... Can you magically predict how Poland would have evolved in a alternative reality where the US didn't sabotage the USSR?

Was that a SpongeBob reference?

@@Mangoeplanter yes

The reason the Marshall plan occured was because the US needed to expand and it was tantamount of having your politics and military tied to the US interests,the US didnt do it out of kindness,also if Romania under capitalism is still poor after more than 30 years of capitalism,how long must it go on until it work?

The Eu and its governments do not care about their citizens? Why do you think some rich french or american bankers would give a shit about you? They only care about exploiting you

@@aweirdredguy3885 In these 30 years of capitalism, Romania has had to make up for the deficit left by communism in order to reach a minimum level compared to other European countries. You can ask any Romanian, read any survey, and you will see that the best period in Romania's history is now, even though we are one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. The country's GDP is largely based on services. To get an idea, remove the percentage of services, which is around 30%-40% of the country's GDP, and you will see the level we were at during communism. Personally, I do not like the fact that Romania is developing so slowly, I do not like wild capitalism, and I believe that the state should be involved in the economy to provide entrepreneurs and workers with secure jobs, development, and a good living standard. Unfortunately, we still need time to fill the gaps left by communism.

@@mariostefanescu16 capitalism is based on profits not needs,maybe socialism in Romania was flawed but your country isnt any better,the USSR industrialized in 25 years,your country is still poor after 30 years of capitalism,if you believe it will work then you might as well wait until the sun goes red giant

@@aweirdredguy3885 My man, you know nothing about Romania. It had a GDP growth of 900% from ‘89 to 2024, it has a higher gdp per capita than Russia and nearly all its neighbours, Romanian average wages are 1200-1300€ before tax and 750-800€ after tax per month. Romania under capitalism is soo much better, in fact Romanians nowdays live better than they ever lived. We still have a lot of problems, like corrupt politicians and very bad political parties, but this is the fault of ex communists, who abuse trust of their people (PSD).

You're not a communist nor an anti imperialist, you're a state capitalist who supports the other empire.

​@@knowledgeanddefense1054 tf are you talking about

@@jackisinforthewin The actual truth, the USSR was an imperialist superpower just like the US is. "bu-but all the nations they conquered were fascist!" how convenient, definitely not propaganda. Heck, in some cases attacking them for no valid reason literally encouraged them to ally with the nazis afterwards, like Finland. And in the case of Czechoslovakia for example, they were literally openly socialist and were invaded for demanding more proletariat control (totally a counter revolutionary goal, right there)

@@jackisinforthewin No because "socialist state" is a contradiction, even Marx and Engels believed socialism only begins once the state withers away... and their definition of a worker state involved one ran by the entire population, as Marx told Bakunin. Only libertarian socialist societies (anarcho-communists, communalists, neozapatistas, etc) have made any progress towards decommodification, collectivizing property relations and shrinking class dynamics.

@@knowledgeanddefense1054 Yes, we are anti-imperialists and communists, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I don't understand what you are criticizing. Marx never outlined a specific method of implementing communism, and how communism is implemented can vary wildly. Labeling Revolutionary Catalonia and modern day North Korea under the same umbrella of "communism" would be inefficient. I am a communist, and I decry Joseph Stalin. In a theoretical sense, I need an ideology to argue against: hence, Stalinism. If you are a capitalist for example, you would criticize Putin's regime or Reaganomics, not capitalism. You don't see communists running around calling Putin's regime the capitalist menace.

It didn't collapse, it was voted out by it's bourgeois line of the party when the majority of the population voted to keep it and they called upon the military to crush dissent

@@djriqky9581 you wouldn't happen to have a source ?

@@Epy- 1991 Soviet union referendum: Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality will be fully guaranteed? Choice Votes % Yes 113,512,812 77.85% No 32,303,977 22.15%

@@Epy- For some bourgeois spokesmen, defending their ideology is primarily a matter of public relations and “confidence.” Since the beginning of the new year. President Reagan has been happily proclaiming the coming end of the economic “recession.” His professional huckster’s optimism has been echoed by many others: right-wing economist Milton Friedman predicted that “1983 will be a year of rapid and vigorous economic growth” (Newsweek, February 7). Nevertheless, the flood of anxious reports on the state of the world economy has not ceased. The news media are justifiably shaking over the danger to the major capitalist powers posed by threatening economic collapse in several large “Third World” countries; fears of a “debtors’ cartel” surface simultaneously in several journals. One of the most optimistic bourgeois organs, Business Week magazine, illustrated its “Recovery at Last” article with a graph titled “The modest world recovery … will bolster world trade … but will not restore jobs” (February 14). A month later (March 21) it added that capital spending in 1983 will fall by 8.8 percent - hardly a portent of a serious recovery. A significant sidelight on the bourgeoisie’s controversy has been focused on the economic condition of the West’s chief rival, the USSR. On Christmas day, a CIA report was released crediting the Soviet Union with a comfortable 4.8 percent growth rate for the past three decades. Congressman Henry Reuss, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee that commissioned the report, stressed the liberals’ conclusions: “This important study helps put into perspective for Americans the fact that the USSR, far from being on the verge of collapse, has experienced major growth.” Reuss was clearly disputing Reagan’s frequent assertions that the USSR, because of its lack of “free enterprise,” was economically doomed. A CIA official, releasing a follow-up study, underlined the point: “In fact, we do not consider an economic ‘collapse’ … even a remote possibility” (New York Times, January 9).

@@Epy- For some bourgeois spokesmen, defending their ideology is primarily a matter of public relations and “confidence.” Since the beginning of the new year. President Reagan has been happily proclaiming the coming end of the economic “recession.” His professional huckster’s optimism has been echoed by many others: right-wing economist Milton Friedman predicted that “1983 will be a year of rapid and vigorous economic growth” (Newsweek, February 7). Nevertheless, the flood of anxious reports on the state of the world economy has not ceased. The news media are justifiably shaking over the danger to the major capitalist powers posed by threatening economic collapse in several large “Third World” countries; fears of a “debtors’ cartel” surface simultaneously in several journals. One of the most optimistic bourgeois organs, Business Week magazine, illustrated its “Recovery at Last” article with a graph titled “The modest world recovery … will bolster world trade … but will not restore jobs” (February 14). A month later (March 21) it added that capital spending in 1983 will fall by 8.8 percent - hardly a portent of a serious recovery. A significant sidelight on the bourgeoisie’s controversy has been focused on the economic condition of the West’s chief rival, the USSR. On Christmas day, a CIA report was released crediting the Soviet Union with a comfortable 4.8 percent growth rate for the past three decades. Congressman Henry Reuss, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee that commissioned the report, stressed the liberals’ conclusions: “This important study helps put into perspective for Americans the fact that the USSR, far from being on the verge of collapse, has experienced major growth.” Reuss was clearly disputing Reagan’s frequent assertions that the USSR, because of its lack of “free enterprise,” was economically doomed. A CIA official, releasing a follow-up study, underlined the point: “In fact, we do not consider an economic ‘collapse’ … even a remote possibility” (New York Times, January 9).

Akkor tudod hogy annak idején kelet európába szar volt a helyzet amikor Magyarország volt a "legvidámabb barakk"

Hungary exploited lands of other ethnic groups, the same way Austria did. It's easy to make Budapest developed when you take resources from other lands.

@@ile1237 it was the part of hungary so it was ours. Weak argument

@@ile1237 Also Timisoara was the first European city to have electricity and it had romanian majority. And I could go on with examples like this

​@@ile1237 Reminder that the richest inhabitants of Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary were overwhelmingly Jews. Ethnic Hungarians had political privileges, but they were not economically the most prosperous.

🗿

Retarded ideology

Free public education increases higher "level" labor pools across a theoretical country. Access to more labor competition should mean wage decrease, but only if you consider the current status and pool of advanced labor and sufficient. For argument let's use doctors (I know public uni students don't all become doctors but...) before free education the pool of doctors is restricted by financial pressure, public uni reduces those financial pressures increasing availability of college and thereby hopefully increasing the labor pool of doctors. If wages are assumed supply and demand we can assume doctor wages decrease and more people become doctors, the reality is likely thar public universities may REQUIRE other public services (health, legal, etc) so as to offset that increase in supply with a much larger increase in demand. Then the new doctors learning from public free uni now also have new patients becoming more healthy from new public health. The beauty of most socialist practices is they are self reinforcing as long as they remain adaptable to new technology/environmental concerns

@@Soudrah 🙏thank you so much

@@positivevibesonly3371 the above comment is only a theoretical abstraction, things in reality are much more complicated because every country has to exist within a global economic system. For instance, there is a high incentive for people that got a free education and became engineers and doctors etc to move abroad to wealthier countries to have (1) better wage and (2) better purchacing power due to fiscal policies (i.e. different currencies, higher or lower cost of living). When trying to research something you will have to differentiate on what terms you will approach it. Economics (as are mostly used, similar to logistics etc.) will give you answers based on quantifiable observable data, and as such is limited to our ability to categorize and measure. Political economy, then, has a different approach with different limitations. It's hard to find THE ANSWER to anything. If we could there wouldn't be much need for discussion and debate but you can create the best model / understanding based on the available material. This may be tiresome but it helps us at least safeguard ourself from error

Thank you! Your second question was pretty much answered by Soundrah, and regarding nr. 3 - I've found pretty much every single artwork on Pinterest, by searching for various socialist/communist/marxist/soviet keywords.

Remember that Marx and Engels did not distinguish between the two.

The word “socialism” has lost it’s revolutionary essence in some countries like the US and most Western and even people living in socialist countries know the word “communism” and hear them more than “socialism”.

@@CripplingDualitybut Lenin did though and what was the full name of Soviet Russia and Soviet Union ? Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics respectively.

It wasn't socialist either, socialism requires social ownership by the working class - not replacing one top 1% with another and pretending like the proletariat controls things now (and then murdering the proletariat every time they criticize and protest you)

I can tell you as an author if you don't say "communism" 95% of people don't know what you are talking about. They think socialism is Bernie Sanders.

I'm pretty sure BO is capable of more than that

I hope I haven't really left that weak of an impression. We might not end up agreeing on everything, but I won't disappoint.

@@BalkanOdyssey_ Not saying because I didn't like this video. More like it's common to see a lot of "communists" do very well debunking a lot of myths about socialist countries and then go on a rant about how Stalin was the most evil and Trotsky should've been elected or something. When in reality Stalin's administration, while not perfect, was responsible of the absolute increase in the material conditions of the USSR. Propaganda against Stalin is so bad, people still believe Stalin got a terrible relationship with his son or that he died alone because "his guards were afraid to go in", non-sense!

@@FleshBrainhow did Stalin die then?

@@KenstutisVytautas In the last few months before his death, his security was dismantled. Proskryobychev, Stalin's personal secretary since 1928, was put under house arrest, and Nikolai Vlasik, Stalin's bodyguard, was arrested in December 1952 and died in prison. Pyotr Kosynkin, Vice-Commander of the Kremlin Guard, died of a supposed heart attack on 17 February 1953. Beria was the only one capable of such a plot, and Molotov suspected that MVD chief Beria poisoned Stalin, while Hoxha believed Khrushchev and Mikoyan had planned to assassinate him. On 1 March 1953, at 23:00 Stalin's guards found him unconscious in his room but did not call a doctor. He did not receive first aid until twelve hours after his collapse and died on 5 March.

I don't know what I would do without your Input 💀

5 hours later and you still didn't informed us of what you think/opinion

@@krasinmarinovapologies I took quite some time listening to it whilst struggling with work.

the year was 1986

Dogmatism really will be the end of us

​@@BalkanOdyssey_ Ironic statement, coming from you.

​@@BalkanOdyssey_ look who is talking

@@BalkanOdyssey_ Communists in the internet dogmatically worshipping Stalin are no different than religious fundamentalists and Reddit Atheists imo. Wonder how they'll react when I tell them Lenin was the greatest skeptical voice against Stalin at his last years, along with Trotsky, Pannekoek and Rosa Luxemburg.

I'm always suspicious of exaggeration.

It didn't do bad things.

​@@lidyagor it did

In fact homosexuality and transsexuality were not at all considered taboo in the Islamic world up until the early 20th century.

​@@eges72 source?

​​@@eges72 And that's mean that there is nothing inherently new and progressive about being pro-trance or pro- homosexuality.

​@@xxvxxv5588Pro trans and Pro homosexuality? Why would anyone inherently be Pro these things? You mean Pro civil rights right

​@@eges72yeah they killed you for that no questions asked

Oh boy….we have smart history learner here >the fastest-growing economy in the world Well, when you have 0 vehicles in 1912 and then you have 2 vehicles in 1913 it means your growth rate is 200%, fastest to be sure. But seriously speaking, Russian Empire didn’t have independent early industry, Lenin even wrote about it, how Russian industry was international. And Russia didn’t have choice to participate in WWI or not, it had been dependent on “allies”. Second: Russian empire had tough situation in peasantry, it was problem which cause giant growth of terrorism against Empire’s leaders >German military German military May have great fantasy, German generals also love to imagine victory over France in 1917. In 1917 February Empire ended. New government was UNABLE to control situation, Petrograd (capital city) was on verge of starvation, because railroad system collapsed. Communists haven’t came to power. And imagining things like you do is very stupid. Communists turned collapsing Empire into first space country. >Eastern Ukraine Yeah, and during USSR it was developing rapidly, after independence Ukraine screwed up all their industry of Donbass. They turned this region into poorest. Capitalism caused that. >in one of the most fertile regions Which witnessed famines during Empire. But I have way more interesting question: after 1933, was there any more famines in Ukraine same scale? Except 1947 (this is post war and luckily much lesser scale) You know that in Poland in 1933 was happening hunger too, exactly on Ukrainian territories, was it done by communists too? >in 1939 Poland had higher GDP In 1945 was Poland same like it was in 1939? Was it communism ruling in Warsaw from 1939 to 1945?

I can say you are special type of genius You compare Poland of 1939 which had lived in peace for quiet a time….with Spain, which ended civil war in 1939. OBVIOUSLY POLAND WOULD LOOK BETTER. You think we are that dumb?! Plus, is GDP only metric we use in comparing economy? Well, I should say, East Germany GDP wasn’t much different from Greek for some time.

​@@danielk934 In 1913, the Russian Empire had a higher GDP than countries such as France, Austria-Hungary, Japan, and Italy. While its per capita GDP lagged behind the West, its overall GDP base was not low. So, it probably didn't have just two cars :-). The Soviet Union did not reach 1913 levels of food production until 1955. It's important to distinguish between famines and deliberate starvation caused by political decisions. The starvation of millions in Ukraine was a political crime perpetrated by Soviet authorities. The USSR prioritized heavy industry at the cost of millions of lives, with workers often forced into brutal conditions. Additionally, the space and weapons programs significantly contributed to the Soviet Union's economic decline. Industry in communist countries collapsed because it was often developed in isolation from the actual needs of the economy. A large amount of heavy industry was focused on armaments rather than consumer goods. Moreover, many large industrial plants were technologically outdated and unable to compete with Western industries. Consequently, after the fall of communism, much of the heavy industry either went bankrupt or was taken over by Western companies. Not to mention the oligarchs, mainly from the former communist authorities, whose nepotism and corruption have destroyed many economies in the region. Comparing Poland and Spain is a good example because the countries are similar in terms of population and size. Poland, which like Spain was devastated by the war, had a higher GDP until about 1965. By 1989, when communism fell, Spain's GDP was eight times higher. In terms of parameters like the standard of living, average life expectancy, level of infrastructure, and number of apartments per capita, there was a significant gap between these countries in 1989. Comparing southern European countries in the 1940s and 1950s, which were no more developed than Central and Eastern Europe, to the 1990s, reveals a substantial disparity. In fact, apart from education, which was at a very high level in communist countries, communism increased the development disparities between Western countries and Central and Eastern Europe. Sticking to Poland .Over the last thirty-five years, after the fall of communism, Poland has actually come closest to Western levels of development, reaching 80% of EU average GDP per capita . Economically, the last 35 years have probably been the best growth period in Poland's history. In terms of GDP per capita based on purchasing power, Central and Eastern European countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary are now at a similar level to Portugal or Greece, despite the huge difference 35 years ago.

​@@danielk934 There were no multiple famines in Ukraine under the tsar as devastating as the Stalin's. Neither Polish Ukrainian population dropped in the interwar period. You are just coping.

1. Russian nominal gdp was larger the France due Russia having way more population (4 times). Russia had 2.5 time more population then the Germany and lower GDP then the Germany. Country started to industrialize railways metallurgy and millitary industrial complex, but failed because it had not industrialized agriculture. Also a lot of enterprises were owned by westerners. Could Russia outcompete Germay in WW2 like that i think it is very unlikely. State was run with hereditary buerocrats and patchwork governance and basicaly crumbled in late 1916 early 1917. Administrative restructuring was crucial achivement of revolution which held USSR together in WW2. 2. South Ukraine had famines every almost 10 years. Steppes have long dry spells(I`m from there) 1891 and 1911 famines each took away +- 2.5 million lives. They just were not counted most of famines recorded were from outside scources like Polish ones. Response to 1933 was bad decision making. But in comparison they managed famine of 1946 well which led to population explosion. 3. most of Czech industry were in Sudets which were in active ethnic cleansing before and after WW2. Which meant that nominaly country had a lot of industry but genocidal policies impeded usage of it. 4.Spain was in civil war this argument is laughable. And you just can`t compare GDP and actual economy cuz in socialist systems a lot of production have no ascined monetary value 5. West Germany was way more industrialized and dens then east before WW2. East was forced into reparations by USSR and East still kept up with west until mid 80th. It went bankrupt but it was due unsuccessfull implemetation of cooperatives during Perestroika. Which broke supply chains. Powerfull Party just had no incentive to keep system which limited its wealth. Corruption is omnipresent it is stabilizing factor in any system especially capitalist ones.

It is surprising mistake to make in such well researched video but still great job comrade.

You call Stalin "paranoid" yet the people he suspected of being revisionists...turned out to be revisionists once they took control of the party. Stalin and the hardliners of the party should've conducted another purge in the 40s and 50s. The destabilization caused by the German invasion gave the capitalist-roader bureaucrats too much power. Stalin had plans to dissolve this counter-revolutionary clique in the party/state and restrengthen the proletarian dictatorship, but he prioritized rebuilding eastern europe and weathering the crises and feared rocking the boat too much. His declining health and gradual seclusion from state affairs might have also played a part. But I feel like this was an error that gave Khrushchev and his cronies the opportunity they needed to conduct their Thermidor.

The authoritarianism was definitely an issue to an extent but moreso because opportunism in the party wasn't countered effectively and just relied on purges getting rid of these elements which just led to chaos as important figures that served key roles in the party who couldve been debated and convinced of a more correct path were purged. Id argue that the Maoist ideas around constant debate and building up organic bases of support that have the ability to attack the party if they fall into opportunism is the path future revolutions will go down, although there is still a lot of work needed to understand how to go about this considering the failures of the cultural revolution in China to actually do what it was meant to do and the issues Maoist parties are running into with rightism.

@@victorconway444 Nice propaganda, isn't it convenient that anyone who questioned the holy supremacy of Mr. "commodity production in one state capitalist country is socialism because I say so" turned out to be revisionists?

@@knowledgeanddefense1054 Lmao tell me you haven't read Lenin without saying you haven't read Lenin. Might be difficult for a western leftoid to understand, but "state capitalism" was actually a good thing for the USSR with its conditions. As was commodity production, a means to facilitate exchange between urban enterprises and the collective farms. But I'm interested to hear how you would do it better.

@@victorconway444 I'm not from the west a-hole and no it wasn't, if you read MARX instead of his later revisionists you'd see that he advocated for worker councils (like those soviets which lenin supported up until the moment they stopped voting for him, afterwards he started making things up against them and grabbed all power to himself) and one of the last things he ever wrote was his admiration for specifically Russian peasant communes... too bad the bolsheviks hated the peasantry and murdered them and their families in droves, huh? I'm not even a marxist but I agree with Marx, Luxemburg and council communists that this is how you do it.

It ended when three guys in a room illegally dissolved the USSR against 77% of the populations wishes, and collaborators like Yeltsin siphoned off state assets to foreign companies for pennies on the dollar.

Soviet Russia was the biggest money siphon... You ever heard about USA? 😂

if u think that OF is a bigger money siphon then you are lost mu dude XD look up USA's military budget amd net worth of people owning the companies sucking up all of those bilions of taxpayer dollars. also, what you described is called capitalist restoration, neoliberal shock-therapy - not communism XD for thkse oligarchies and crisis i the 90s you have to thank your big daddy USA, not communism XD

Yeah, maybe that's because western backed traitors like Yeltsin illegally dissolved the USSR against the wishes of 77% of the population, and then gave their state owned assets to western companies for pennies on the dollar. But yes, please tell me how the USSR siphoned this money 😂

Me no read books, me believe grandma's bedtime story instead

While in same time women werent even allowed to vote in US along with people of color.

You got a source for this?

@@user-oz5yk9bm5c I know Lady izdihar has a good video on the abortion and birth control restrictions as well as Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan having a good section on it as well. for the women in leadership question, well in my opinion it's a foolish talk, as even if women are in leadership positions that doesn't equate with good conditions for women and plus we have to compare it for the time as the strides in women's rights were completely unknown to almost anywhere in the world, which forced the western ruling classes to give women rights to the sciences in order to not get smoked in the space race. books i recommend for these topics are "Soviet Democracy" by Pat Sloan, "Statsi State or Socialist Paradise" by Bruni De La Motte and John Green, as well as "Why women have better sex under socialism" Kristen Ghodsee" (a book I have yet to read myself but a very good one on this topic from what i've heard)

@@cvybays3733 Thank you:)

Watch the video. If you think that's impressive, then the statistics on the Soviet economy will blow you away.

Statistical data shows that Latvia had a higher standard of living than the Russian SSR. Your economy never 'collapsed' thanks to any circumstances but war, and after ww2 all soviet satellites developed steadily throughout their existence. Maybe not as fast as the US, but they never had crashes either.

Not you were, but mostly Baltic Germans on service of Russian Empire and some rich Russians together with them. Btw, many of these Germans were true patriots of Russian Empire and struggled for Tzar in Civil war. Anyway, second thing was having access to entire market of Russian Empire. After Germans and White Russians have gone everything was about to finish. But Soviet Union has come and made for you convenient to blame it for your dreams ruining. However indeed USSR policy was to bring you exceptional economic privileges which most of USSR regions might only dream to have. After USSR collapse you continued parasite earnings on Russia via ports, dirty currency games and money laundering. But since 2010s Russia slowly started to shut down all your activities. And finally 2022 year, the game changer, left you alone, totally isolated from interacting with large Russian market. Back to nowhere

@@chemreac1 I'm a second generation Latvian they're 100% correct about the state of Latvia. As far as your comment please link your statistical dat because I call bullshit. And what happened to Latvia and what Latvians had to endure was horrific. Whatever statistics you're going. to pull out of your ass doesn't take away from that even if there were marginal increase to standard of living in some respect (which I'm highly skeptical of). Also, your reminder that Russia nor any ML country has actually achieved socialism

If the world ends in nuclear apocalypse, I will be very thankful to the Baltic states for triggering that apocalypse…

Did you watch the video? He clearly mentions existing socialism's many mistakes (and mentions that he will talk about it in more detail in another video)

@@InsertNameHereBoi Yes, but he mentions specifically how the Soviet Union supported the other languages and cultures. That is wrong, they tried to erase Ukrainian culture and that mindset of them never even existing is what caused the war right now. Not to mention he said it is western propaganda about the mistreatment of civilians and there are many who happily escaped. And if I recall he said the first person who landed on the moon was from the Soviet Union, that is a lie. It was Neil Armstrong

But Capitalists do that all the time, they ignore the Bengal Famine, the Irish Famine, the massacre in East Timor and they are doing it right now with Gaza and talk about how good they are.

Fr

He is talking facts

@@user-wx6vz2vn3y like the fact that communism suck

@@user-wx6vz2vn3y as an Eastern European... no, he isn't.

@@user-wx6vz2vn3y indeed. the fall of communism was the day the world went to shit.

Yes a communist would only look at mass industrialisation as a marker for success

Only because of western sanctions and bans on technology being sent to the communist block. They did invent plenty of technologies on their own. They invented cell phones and put a man in space. Imagine what they could do with modern computing. And badly mismanaged and inefficient compared to what. There's plenty of inefficiency and mismanagement in the West,too.

Socialism for All!!!

@@Pridetoons you know what I mean but yes

You wouldn't be able to handle it.

​@yaelz6043 are you implying that the overwhelming wave of relief from knowing that the levers of power are no longer held individualistic sociopaths who are only concerned with amassing the largest pile of plunder is somehow hazardous? I disagree

Yes

Almost like this video has an offensively stupid, indefensible, and insensitive thesis statement.

​@@PastPerspectives3 the ussr brought toilets to eastern europe

@@pao5567 it brought death, poverty, authoritarnism and russification ; any glorification of USSR is a disgrace towards all minorities, who ended up in the Soviet Union after WW2 (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Eastern Poland, Eastern Finland).

@@mariopopa1350 >poverty Watch le video, also pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/ >authoritarianism Watch le video >russification You still speak your language kek

Feudalism existed mainly in underdeveloped countries, like Romania and Hungary Poland before 1939 had Ukrainian East, which was super underdeveloped and rural While Czechoslovakia, yes, it was developed

At the beginning the USSR had some strong anti religious policies which do not at all represent communism or marxism. It was probably one of their biggest mistakes.

Actually the Baltics and Poland were part of the backward Russian Empire and they were feudal

@@JohnoftheWesternlands They were all split off from the Soviet Union after WW1 and actually only a small sliver of present day Poland was part of Russia mostly it was part of German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Baltic States and that small part of Poland only became part of Russia in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. They never became Russified and were more occupied nations, because all throughout the 19th and into the 20th century there were regular revolts to rid themselves of the Russians. Feudalism ended in Poland and the Baltic states in the middle of the 18th century when it ended in the rest of Western Europe before they were occupied by Russia. Feudalism persisted in Russia until later in the 19th century.

The author of the video made the same mixup with all the lands which were a part of Austria-Hungary such as Croatia too. From his earlier videos I figured he is originaly from Bosnia, and yes Bosnia and other SEE countries, or the Balkan region, were not long enough part of the "west" thru their membership in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy but instead were up until the end of the 19th/early 20th century just economicaly and socialy destroyed feudal colonies of the Ottoman empire. After WW2, when they were ocupied by the USSR-influenced communist regime, that regime did at first do a lot for them to catch-up with the rest of Europe but eventualy faild from the 70s to the 80s because socio-economic development does not go hand in hand with totalitarian regimes which stay in pover only thru their secret police brutality in order to silence all who dare to have different opinions.

Before WW2 Estonia had co parabole GDP to its neighbor Finland. Crazy to think about.

Poland was very backward before ww2, my great grandfather was a politician and my grandfather lived nearly to 100 so i learnt alot about this period from them. Police brutality was also 10x higher during that time than under communism, compare how many striking workers were shot before ww2 and under communism.

Live better? It put tens of millions into the ground directly due to its policies. Grow up you idealist.

It's actually a two-part collaboration, but nice that you noticed both without knowing that in advance lol

@@BalkanOdyssey_ Yes I noticed that shortly after as I initially just saw the uploads lol

Emphasis on “force.”

@@robertmartin6800 As opposed to being forced to be worse? Look up the enclosure acts and cry me a river

uBlock extension ;)

KZfaq creators can't do that anymore. Not easily at least. The council of geeks KZfaq channel had a video on it. If I remember correctly you need to go to your ad sense account and block it from there. Again I'm not sure. But you will have to help BO with URLs and the name of the videos/articles or whatever it was. He won't know

You're goddamn right, Comrade.

Bukharin's group advocated for the "natural" approach to collectivization - first, let the kulaks naturally concentrate everything by means of capitalist competition, and then expropriate it from them already "collectivized". That approach was rejected as social-darwinism because it essentially meant that all the regular peasants would get fed to the kulaks and suffer in the process. In hindsight, maybe that way would've been better in the long run, because nobody would be stupid enough nowadays to deny that the kulaks were parasites, exploiters and criminals.

@@vadimk3484 even with all my annoyance at people trying to paint Kulaks as "honest hard working farmers who were punished by the government" I still would not even consider that dispelling such narrative could be worth even a fraction of suffering caused by this pauperisation instead of collectivization approach. Like eve as a joke such notion sounds incredibly poor taste to me.

@@vadimk3484 Yes, yes, because the kulaks would have just given away the loot that they had (no). Such an approach would unleash a new civil war. No one needed it. You probably have little or no knowledge of historical materialism, I strongly advise you to study it. And in general, philosophy as such, so as not to draw such conclusions based on idealism.

@@fankymonk8868 Its laughable that people are acting like the Kulaks were sugar cain plantation owners. They were relatively small farmers. Who didn't have much. But were despised by people who had even less than them. Going after the Kulaks was a cynical political play. To win over large chunks of the Proletariat. Since poor peasants in the country side aren't familiar enough with the ultra rich to hate them or despise them, the same way that a factory worker might despise their rich fat cat boss. But the Kulak, that shit head neighbor who had two cattle while you had none, was familiar. And familiarity breeds contempt In the Targetting of the of the Kulaks we see an example of the Narcism of small differences. You see the same thing in modern leftist communities. Objectively, we might say things like "Eat the rich". But the people we hate the most are leftists like us who differ in some small but significant way.

You should watch the video "The Bolshevik War Against the Soviets" by Noj Rants. Even since BEFORE the founding of the USSR, during the time of Lenin, the Soviets, Peasant's Councils, and local assemblies were being oppressed and puppeted by the Bolsheviks. The Soviets were never truly independent, free, or democratic for as long as Bolshevism held sway in the Russian Empire. The Bolsheviks even repeatedly extorted, opened fire on, and arrested many independent Soviets for being "counter-revolutionary." Edit: Noj Rants's other videos are fantastic as well. I recomend him through and through.

I'm preety sure it's in a pinned comment

@@April-zr4bihe said that sioc is an „ad-hoc“ theory and talked about „stalinism“

nevermind about my (now deleted) comment holy shit I was NOT expecting that from him anyone using the term "stalinism" without the slightest hint of irony is genuinely so confusing to me

@@April-zr4bi it also could be baby leftism as he doesn‘t properly understand sioc, either that or trotskyite misconstruction of the theory

@@zubal6121 it genuinely sounds like something i would hear from a disingenuous anti-communist on tiktok or something 😭

Let's say I'm a baby leftist. Explain the irony of using the term "Stalinism" in a few sentences. I'll hear you out.

Hm I haven't read that one but I'll check it out myself too

Lol thank you bratko

Lol, you're both morons batkovtzi 🤣

Tsssss

Full course meal, god damn!

​@@Pabloto-dq3sxwhat meal?

@@Mangoeplanter the one Balkan odyssey cooked, of course!

And he burned the food

This 100%. You can't deny how much the USSR helped it's states, but a lot of these vassal states didn't gain nearly as much from it.

Yeah, that was also addressed in the video. With instead of building their own socialist system, they dogmatically replicated the soviet union.

Well... I like communism's goal of stateless society, but I think their methods are counter-productive. This is why I am not a communist.

how many times does capitalism collapse?

​@@munaali840like never?

@@Mangoeplanter2008 recession, the Great Depression (hilariously the USSR was the only one not affected), the 1970 economic inflation just to make a few

​@@username88094bro serioudly thinks we dont live in capitalism anymore 💀💀

It is when Multiple People work or think the same like a Hive, at least to my knowledge, but your Comment is a day old so you probably have already looked it up or forgot about it.

Have you ever lived a day under communism?

Because most people are too ignorant and uncritical to even want to find the truth, they just want easy and short answers even if the mass majority of them are lies or aren’t accurate.

Its like reviews on McDonald's or something a 100 people go in and have a decent experience. 1 person will have a bad experience and write about it and tell everyone how awful that location is and that it needs to be shut down and be all vocal about it while the other 99 will just go on about their business. Except in this case the democratic world supports the negative view and blows it out of proportion.

Someone disagreeing with me makes them a facist nazi

You're comment is too intellectually lazy. Ignoring conditions like that the GDR had no economic centers, except Berlin, of which they only got half, while West Germany with the Rhineland, which was one of the first places to industrialise, and better access to the global economy. Also West Germany relied for 30 years at least on the coal and steel from the "Ruhrpott" and the Marshall-plan, which was a lot Harder for the GDR. The Trabant was a pretty fine car, and the reason you had to wait 15 years was because of the second oil crisis hitting East Germany real hard. But that didn't even matter, because they developed public transport, which made it that nobody even needed a car in the first place. Very different in West Germany, where with stuff like the privatisation of the "Bundesbahn" to the modern "Deutsche Bahn" has seen massive stagnation. There is far more to say, but comparin two countries, when one is 3 times smaller, is bullshit.

@@cygnos6201 you have written so much but still you did not mention the most important stuff: that West Germany benefited from the American Marshall Plan, while the East Germans had to see how their factories were disassembled and moved to USSR. Also the gap between West and East Europe grew over the decades because Communism is a fail from the economic point of view ( I can tell you alot about that, but you can just consider the economic colapse of the Communist bloc in the 80s). Btw, the reason why you had to wait so much to buy a new car, not only for the poor Trabant was because the Communist industry was never capable to produce enough goods to satisfy the demand, as the economy was planned not a market economy, based on the market's needs.

@@corneliucor6903 This is bs. Yes the Soviet Union did export industry, but the effect of it is heavily overstated, and it also died down, till the creation of the GDR, when it was absolutely abolished. This is always pushed, to fit the narrative of the soviet union being a "coloniser" of eastern europe. No the gap between east and west Europe didn't widen? Also first off eastern Europe long was behind western Europe. Comparing them already is stupid. "Aufschwung Ost" was still a thing. Also western Europe litterally had colonies till the 90's. Brother western Europe started out with triple the xp, money and manpower and then you think that's proof that capitalism is successfull, when they win? Also please don't cite me Mises or Hayek, with the ECP. It's a bloody meme at this point. Btw. have you forgotten Perestroika? Where they made an effort to liberalise the economy? Which nuked the planned economy and didn't do shit to improve anything. The reason why you had to wait so long was already as I said the second oil crisis. The hell are you saying? Before the oil crisis you could by a Trabant in the east like a BMW in the west. What you're saying about the planned economy never being able to produce to satisfy the demand is also just flat out wrong. It had the same or better margin for error than the market. Even at a time when the calculation was done by hand. And statistics also showed that the deviation from perfect prices, by neo-classical standards, were the same in both west and east Germany. What privatisation and giving market power does, I again point you to the German national companies "Bundesbahn" and "Bundespost", which were privatised and today any German will tell you, that the two new companies "Deutsche Bahn" and "DHL" suck ass. Also, If the market is so much more successfull than the planned economies, why did no planned economy crash ever(without like a war or some external influence obviously", while market economies crash all 7 to 10 years? Is that to satisfy the demand?

@@cygnos6201 you must have invested some time in writing all this, so I will try to keep up.😀 You really want to prove the superiority of communism, ispite of all evidence. The Eastern part of Germany was not poorer than West Germany before WW2. Taking exactly this case, there was no gap between the West and the East before communism came with the Russian tanks in the East. What happened after that was that the Americans founded the reconstruction of Europe(Marshall Plan), realizing the benefit on the long term, while USSR treated the countries in the east like colonies, brutally crashing any atempt of suveranity: Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Gdansk 1979..At the same time, the communist industry was not competitive, it did not have to, because it was underdelivering. This is why a Trabant from '89 looked exactly the same like one from '65. There was no need to change, to inovate as the outdated car would sell anyway. As a conclusion, communism was a failed system. It collapsed when the Berlin Wall collapsed, it was more like a prison imposed by the Soviets.

@@corneliucor6903 I never stated that east Germany was poorer prior to the war. But it was developed that's a fact. The major industry was where all the steel and coal was produced, in the Rhineland. And that was in the west. East Germany all the way to Königsberg was more developed than Poland for example, but it wasn't as developed than the Rhineland. This division goes all the way back to Charlemagne. My comment was directed at the division of eastern and western europe and there sure as hell was a division. This seems strange to me that you disregard that. While western europe could exploit other nations in Africa, South America and Asia, eastern europe could never do that. And western europe industrialised almost a century before eastern europe and Russia first even industrialised with Stalin. Btw. if we use the highly disregarded GDP, then we can see that they started out like all developing economies in Asia and Africa and then with socialism climbed to the second palace. Like quoted in the video "We are 50-100 years behind the developed nations. We have to make up for that in 10 or they will crush us" -Stalin. Also you're ignoring the russian civil war, the collapse of the austrian empire or the whole ass second world war. To this day hundreds of people a year die, because of mines left in the forests from the Soviets. Basically all cities from Berlin to Leningrad were left in ruins, and not by bombing campaigns like on the west front, but by actual infantery fighting. The soviet union had lost 28 million people in that war and then you suddenly expect them to suddenly to do better, while western countries were pumped with money? This is idealism. You ignore all material conditions next to the system that could've influenced their demise. And Just so we're clear: They recovered from the worst war in history, while being politically isolated with eastern Europe, while going into the cold war, and having had lost lot's of good people. And they became the biggest contrahent of the world hegemon. And there are so much things like defeat of homelessness and illiteracy. That sounds like pretty damn successfull. Maybe they didn't provide something like a marshall plan, because the country was in shambles, while the USA was basically untouched? I already knew this narrative was coming that the Soviet Union was a "coloniser". While I personally am against the soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, you are out of your mind to claim that it was like treatment of colonies, completely disregarding the geopolitical effects a weaker Warsaw pact would've carried. (I've also seen the strange fingerprints of CIA intellegencia, though it's hard to say how much they were actually involved, so I'll Just let it sit here, till I'm done with my research on that topic) Also btw., the soviet union never attacked Albania, when they quit the Warsaw pact. And then you gotta remember the interventions the USA did and does to this day. Like using IWF world bank loans to keep developing nations on their side. When Chile became socialist, they for example removed all loans and the economy stagnated. Though they needed Pinochet to fully finish them off. Or sanctions, like the sanction regime on Iraq since the first gulf war till the Iraq war, as Sadam Hussein was acting against US interests in the middle east. These sanctions were so bad, that to many, like myself they constituted a genocide. I don't want to endulge in Tu qouque fallacies, but this shows how the USA did themselves act like "colonisers" (Phillipines and Liberia :/ ), and did that even in strong countries like France for example. Because atleast to me this text throbbs, from the "We good, they bad"-narrative. Because we did a lot worse, and even soviet interventions in Hungary (also didn't the highest soviet decide against Breshnews will of a diplomatic solution to crush the hungarians? Democracy I guess ;))and Czechoslovakia were to prevent them from being at a geopolitical disadvantage to not get destroyed with the Cold War. Well what do you mean competitive? It tried to make good products and such regardless if they would be competitive on the market. And no, not everything that is competive on a market stage is actually good. Or then why do successfull businesses need ads and such? I'm no car guy, so I won't tell you like I'm an expert on that subject, that much what changed in the different versions of the Trabant. But from my knowledge as I already stated a car first off was not needed, unlike in countries with a car culture like Mexico or the US, as they made public transport a far more viable solution. And using that is also just no good evidence, as it's a single account. Studies are far better for showing collectively on a nation or even transnational scale, what lacked. But I've yet to see a study that actually proves that socialist output was far worse than capitalist output. For example Shirley Ceresetos' and Howard Waitzkins' study on the physical quality of life concluded that socialist countries were better than capitalist countries of similar development, to be better in all measured regards. I lack such a study in your argument. And as we already are using evidence in single accounts, have you ever heard of "Superfest"? East Germany developed a glass that was expected to be 5 times stronger than normal glass, but it was a mere 50 times stronger. Basically unbreakable. They thought they could sell it in the west, as an east German product. But when they showed it salesmen, while they were certainly impressed, they were asked, why they should buy a glass that does not break. As when a glass breaks, they are the ones, who can sell another and make more profit. The east german unbreakable Glass, while a neat idea, it was too developed for the profit oriented west markets. To this day in east german bars, you can find "Superfest", while in the west not so much. There always was a need to innovate, just that capitalism won't allow it, If it isn't profitable. And profitable, doesn't mean it's good. And while capitalism exists, when you drop a glass, it will break. Capitalism has failed us in so many ways, that we can't even imagine and have this confined thinking that "communism has failed everytime it's been tried", stops us from examining capitalism, as a failed idea. Good day, sir.

True

I is more fun to steel from job in capitalism :D

You know we have successful companies in Slovenia during Yugoslav times. ISKRA, GORENJE, TAM, TOMOS, ECT. After system change all companies were privatised and sold for cheap to forenes or stopped operating. We had industy and it was strong, inovative and most importantly we were proud of it. Now we have crumbling remains and bulshit jobs. If someone take a bolt or nut and work 1h less is still much better than having nothing or having class of people taking profit and distributing it to shareholders...

@@franzupet4406 You don't hate Capitalism, you hate the bad corrupted transition from Socialism to Capitalism that occured. Not the same thing.

Meanwhile bosnians albanians and macedonians all remember yugoslavia in far worse ways. As a guy from Kosovo, yugoslavia and socialism were the worst things to ever happen to us. We are very grateful we are free from that oppressive regime. Slovenes should be grateful they were privileged enough in that 'union'