Welcome, Hillbilly!!! My mom’s family is from Alabama. I wish they would see the writing on the wall like you do!

Greetings from Georgia/Southern Appalachia ✌️

Intelligence is defined by your thoughts and reasoning not demographics and titles. Sincerely, A New Englander with an advanced degree.

@@daveparker1537 culture is social. It is created top down. People mostly do as their peers do.

@@Sixshot6x6 Elkhorn City, Ky. In the house.

Likely it is not so easy to get it popularity without state power.

Exactly that is what happened in Russia during the October Revolution. The exceptional conditions of the zarist regime combined with the great intellectual capacity of the bolchevikes vanguard allowed for an almost scientifically precision the prediction of events and political moves necessary for a take over . Lenin and Trotsky saw the opportunity and didn't waste it. Making the insurrection an almost peaceful take over . The blood shed would come later after the many invasions to stop it. The communist party wasn't the most popular. It was the most talented politically. We could say the same for the Cuban revolution. The insurrection started in a guerrilla upraising followed by a working class revolt united in a front that swept with amazing speed the island gaining the immediate support of the immense majority of the Cuban population. The intellectuality played a fundamental role in the insurrection and the profound corruption of the ruling class helped a lot.

Both, i think.

They say that even if they don't answer, they read all messages, and these help gauge the aggregate for what the audiences are interested in when they watch. Donations also guarantee the possibility of some of your questions making it on air.

You have to click your heels together three times and repeat, "There's no place like home, There's no place like home."

You can just skip that shit and watch the career of Christopher Hitchens to see why Trotskyism is a waste of time

One of the greatest loses the left experienced was during the 1990s when the Communist party of Russia stopped sending almost free and affordable literature from Marx , Engels and Lenin to the world around. I remember even the chinese communist party did the same and today I don't know if they keep on doing it. I would buy 3, 5 manifestos and give them up to friends like a bible worker does in the USA. All printed back then by the Communist party if the USSR. The capital was extremely cheap as well. Every year in Mexico City the international book fair would be a gracious event to find international publishers of the left and enjoy great reading at low prices. Even the Mexican communist party had at early festival with the international parties participating I wasn't a member but it was an event for the whole socialist movement members to go to. Will have most parties from the planet participating and showing publications and cultural activities. Some from legal non persecuted, some in the exhile, and a great orchestra would perform like the orquesta Aragon de Cuba for the world's socialists to dance. I danced there in the biggest sports complex of Mexico City. Thousands from around the world. .

There's a lot available on marxists.org

Imagine being an unironic libertarian over the age of 6.

@@CripplingDuality Imagine being a "willfully ignorant, functionally illiterate, unevolved talking hominid"??? Oh wait, you don't have to, because you are one.

Aymara Rand was a third rate novelist and you look silly. I know you won’t be out of this phase for another few years but please don’t go down the ethno nationalist pipeline too hard. You people are getting a little too predictable with that.

@@tylorryn4163 And the Search forTerrestrial Intelligence continues...

Again please at least don’t do that. When you figure out how much of a dead end libertarianism is at least don’t do that.

If you’re willing to discuss in good faith I have no qualms with that.

Whatever the right says about socialism is a lie. Period. We should not dignify any propaganda of capitalists apologists that always will try to denigrate socialism. The greatest threat to the capital is an organized working class under the socialist proposition. The socialist proposition is unionization and democracy in all realms by the working class leadership. The intellectuality can't be a substitution of the working class in any revolutionary change. No working class in the frontlines means no socialism.

It would be pointless since Sowell doesn't value thoughts from intectuals outside of their declared field of study. While Wolff is also an economist, most domains of study require sharing of information to make sense and Wolff's ideas are as much political as they are economic. Wolff understands this while Sowell doesn't seem to. Sowell also levied criticism against Chomsky for being political instead of purely linguistic. This shows how ignorant he is since Chomsky was a political activist before being a linguist. Why would anyone think Sowell has anything intellectually honest to say when he's ignorant of the required cross pollination of fields? At the end of the day he's a right wing elitist that fails to see his own hypocrisy.

Who cares what Sowell has to say, other than right-wing libertarians and other reactionaries? He's just a shill for capitalism and right-wing politics.

Sowell doesn't share his two cents anywhere, he's just a bad faith propagandist telling right wingers what they want to hear

Can any of u geniuses tell me specifically what thomas Sowell has said that is wrong?

@@stuckinthemud4352 There are too many things to count and there is little point in getting into useless KZfaq discussions. It's enough to say that socialists disagree with all right-wing libertarians and supporters of capitalism. The internet is your oyster if you want to find out what those disagreements are and their basis.

Oy vey. Or you could compare it too different species of apples or tigers.

@@emanym nope, once the good comparison is found, there is no need to complicate things

@@qwert-ps5rd Except it is a bad comparison. The different forms of socialism are not different forms of misery.

@@emanym pretty much they are, just listen castroism, stalinism, maoism etc, all types of suffering. Titoism is the only type where people had some sort of real life enjoyment. So yeah, socialism is totally failed idea. Socialism in its essence, not what US sees as socialism, which are highly capitalistic countries that have high degree of government regulation, such as Denmark or Norway, which is something that is sensible.

@@qwert-ps5rd the Tolstoy quote is better applied to the misunderstandings applied by utopians, liberals, and Conservatives. All of you don't know understand socialism, but all of your misunderstandings are stupid in their own way.

You're right. However, social democracy is derived from socialism. Movement away from laissez-faire capitalism towards social democracy arose due to the influence of socialist ideas and the pressure of socialist organising. Whilst it's incorrect to describe social democracies as socialist, it's also incorrect to ignore socialist elements within these societies that came about due to the concept of socialism and the activism of socialists.

If it's the wrong road than how is China less poor than America, in a few decades?

"I want to be an exploiter and socialism won't let me do that. The problem is obviously socialism."

yes, because as we all know, there is no group-think under capitalism... come on dude

Nah

Thanks for clarifying that. I think you expressed the essence.

it can still be rendered into socialism under state control (worker state). that type of socialism is scientific.

@@kobemop the state is a capitalist form,who generate a oportunistic vanguard who transform the revolution into a conter revolution, there is no socialism into a form capitalistic like the "state".

@@kobemop - from what I've seen of USSR and China, "state owns the means of production" is very different from "workers own the means of production."

I have listened to dozens of videos by Richard Wolff and I never heard him say that. Sounds like you are making that up as straw man to take down.

What a dunce. Its "competition creates monopoly, and monopoly destroys competition" Go back to high school kid?

@@PoliticalEconomy101 Thought I made it clear, that was a direct quote from Wolff. Got reading comprehension problems?

Not really. I mean socialism expressed in the early 1900's can be described that way, but most other movements outside of Marxist-leninism promoted decentralized power and often worker's Co-operatives. However, ML has been the most successful to fully socialize the economy because of the centralization, which allowed them to fight counter revolutions and foreign capitalist invasions. Of course, centralization allows for the formation of authoritarianism. I think it's important to note that the formation of social democracies came from the idea that a transitory period would lead to socialism through democratic processes.

@@andrewgreen5574 There have been many 'theories' of socialism that range in age from before Greece and Rome through to modern day political organizations. From 1600 on there were many enlightenment thinkers who came up with their own ideas about a 'socialist' government, most were in opposition to the current political form of government known as a monarchy. A few argued for redistribution of land because the poor didn't have any and this was seen as the cause of poverty. Others argued for an end to monarchy and the nobility to be replaced by any number of types of government. Now Marx and Engels argued that communism, as they had written their manifesto should use the term socialism instead since it did not imply the radicalism of communism. But Marx was not thrilled with what Lenin advocated with his brand of communism. And still, under Lenin and then Stalin, communism (the full expression of socialism) became one of the greatest horrors of the modern world. Later Mao would push the limits of inhumanity. Hitler was just a piker compared to the death count. Socialism will always end in authoritarianism and dictatorship. This is the problem, where the state owns both capital and the 'means' of production (usually taken to mean the physical factories and machines), the only part of the means of production left is labor. Now in communism the state owns even that and decides who works at what, when, where, and for how much. Let us turn for a moment to your ideal social democracy. If the state is going to own both the capital (money, that is what capital is) and the physical buildings and machinery that produce goods and services, then it must own the means of distribution, that is, the warehouses and the stores in which the goods and services are to be distributed. The problem is that if it pays the workers what they think they are worth then money is paid to them directly and they purchase what goods and services they may wish according to their pay. But if they underspend and save part of their money, then they are accumulation capital (that is what savings is, by the way) and so the state can only offer then 'chits' for their goods and services. If a violinist whishes to work playing the violin he will find that it is owned by the state simply because it is a machine that produces a service. You may thing the above paragraph absurd but many of those enlightenment and later 19th century thinks came to similar conclusions and argued how such an outcome could be avoided. As Cuba shows, it can't. The problem with all this clamoring for a social democracy is where does the authoritarianism end? If a country has many corporations and these corporations operate factories outside the country then where does the country's authority begin and end? If the country now nationalizes its corporations what becomes of the factories and its workers in a foreign land? You don't know because you never thought about it. Now think about this, when Cuba expatriated the sugar factories and other industrial factories from the American corporations who owned them, what happened to those factories? Without the technical services and the parts, most of them shut down several years later because the 'workers' had no knowledge of how to operate and maintain them. Same thing happened in Chile, prompting a military coup. The fact of the matter is that there is no transitory period that leads socialism through a democratic process, there never was except in socialist fairy tales.

@@martaamance4545 Lenin wrote State and Revolution in 1917. Marx and Engels died before 1900. How did Marx express his distaste, through a Ouija board?

@@martaamance4545 what really makes it evident that you couldn't care less about the body count is your tacit approval of Pinochet lol

@@CripplingDuality I suppose your heart bleeds for the tens on millions Stalin sent to their death or the same or greater number Mao killed through his programs. Then there were the purges of the Red Army both immediately and after the Germans invaded in 1941. But hey, you're cool with all those deaths, right?