Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "🤔 Why Do We ❤️ Socialism So Much?" video.

2:05 thing about that is, Marx's own words, all Capital is Money. So that Communist definition is comical. As it's not a moneyless society if resources are distributed according to their abilities/need, as all resources are still capital, and in turn Money, and yes Marx literally said all Capital is money. So you can never have a moneyless society. It's a serious contradiction. This is why I often make the observation that in a Socialist system, even if you abolish money people will still fight over other means of capital. It's why the Chernobyl series was so wonderful, you had three selfish men who wanted promotions, office chairs, and better lives, ie other means of capital who ended up being the protagonist of the story. They were still Capitalist in the Socialist sense. So say you have no money and said Communist grows potatoes and decides to hide some of those potatoes so they can trade them in the back ally market (black market) for other capital, a bottle of vodka that they then trade to bribe an official to turn a blind eye and smug the numbers convincing someone their farm needs more equipment so he can grow more potatoes. =3
1
@johannhawk8471 Then Marx contradicts himself. "The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, inwardly circumcised Jews, and what is more, a wonderful means whereby out of money to make more money." Marx v1 Das Capital pg 107. He is basically stating all commodities are money. Anything that holds any kind of value is still money and if it's still money it's Capital. Even if he doesn't use the word Capital in the sentence.
1
Socialism offers Security, and Stability for those who have neither, at the cost of Freedom/Individual Liberties. Offers, being promises, though history has shown it rarely achieves those promises. On top of that, People love Socialism because it also promises fairness/equality, at that same cost, and people normally don't realize how much of a cost that is until it's too late. However, for Socialism to ever stand a chance at working it requires giving power to some form of centralized authority to cease land/property/capital/resources, which means stripping civil liberties. But once that body of authority takes power they rarely give it up, and now after all those liberties are gone, citizens now become slaves to that authority. This is where the promise often turns into a nightmare. As no matter how preachy the socialist is, they're still human. They may not fight for money/capital, but they will fight for an office chair, a higher position of authority for higher benefits. In turn oppression is guaranteed, and I'd argue even if Capital/Money is not involved, you will never rid society of that sense of selfishness that Socialist accuse capitalism to be dominated by, as in a socialist system those selfish tendencies don't disappear, people just find other means to accumulate wealth, stealing from their trade unions, bribing officials with a bottle of vodka, resorting to dealing with Mobsters on the black market to get medicine, and trading other capital to get that medicine. It will never go away.
1
@militaristaustrian Social Democracy is a Branch of Socialism. Original the Social Democratic Goals were to create Socialism by means of Democratic Social Reforms. Rather than the Violent Revolution. They believed that through Social reforms they could lesson the economic damage that Socialism could bring and possible even merge socialism and capitalism together for the benefit of everyone in society rather than the "EVIL MONEY CHANGERS" or "EVIL CAPITALIST." Either way it's still Socialism. Social Democracy has always been Socialism. This is why FDR had his Money Changer Speech which he said he had successfully removed the Money Changers from the Podium of our great Nation, and I'm paraphrasing there. FDR was a Social Democrat btw, he believed in the Same Social Democratic Principles as say the Weimar Republic at the time. Throughout most of the 19th Century and the early 19th Century the Social Democratic Party was THEE Socialist party of Europe as well. Even Marx was a member of the Party, and so were most Communist up until 1918 when the Communist, and Revolutionary Socialist Split from the German Social Democratic Party, which lead to the revolutions of 1918 and 1919 in Germany. Which is why you still see some Socialist calling the Social Democrats of Germany FAR RIGHT because they dare opposed the Communist Revolution. They were never FAR RIGHT, but it was a Civil War between different Leftist Political movements which up until the fall of the German Empire were all on the same side.
1
@militaristaustrian https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Arbeiterbew.jpg Social Democratic Party's founders, who is that in the middle of the poster? Karl Marx? lol
1
@johannhawk8471 Doesn't really matter. The Party was still founded by Socialist. Even today they're still Socialist who believe in Mixed Economics vs pure Socialism. Just because they're not Hardcore Revolutionary Socialist doesn't make them not Socialist. They became Moderate Socialist in short, in-between the Radical Revolutionary Socialist who unknowingly advocate Totalitarianism and Liberal Economics of Capitalism. Because of this I find them more right wing in my opinion than Italian Fascist who claimed to be Moderate Socialist themselves yet still advocated Totalitarianism. Why? Because the Italian Fascist rejected what Marx called Bourgeois Democracy just like the Spartacus Communist during the 1919 Revolution in Germany. Actually 1919 was the primary time when the Social Democrats became their own thing officially. The more radical elements of the SPD split from the party and started a Counter Revolution to overthrow the "Revolutionary" Government. Tragically many Left Wing historians try to spin it the other way around and claim the SPD were the counter revolutionaries for trying to stop the counter revolutionaries.. sighs This split in the party dates back to the late 19th Century but it was at that time only really among the leaders, not the underlings. The differences in beliefs between them was made bare after the First World War.
1
@johannhawk8471 The Italian Fascist were Syndicalist later turned Corporatist. They believed in the concept of State Owned Trade Unions. Which means economically the Italian Fascist actually have a lot in Common with the "Nordic Model" that modern Leftist advocate is a great system. Again though Politically the Italian Fascist were also against Liberal Democracy, they viewed the modern State, ie the Liberal Democratic State a Capitalist State and were openly hostile toward Capitalism. The only reason Industrialist were supportive of the Italian Fascist was because they stepped away from Classist Principles of Marxism, and were no longer supportive of the Class Focused Worker's Revolution. Mostly as a result of Mussolini's influence over the Fascist Party which he didn't found btw. Mussolini through his observation during the First World War saw that Nationalism seemed to rally people together far more effectively than Social Class. So started advocating when he was still part of the Communist Party that the party should adopt a Pro-War position and rally the people that way, also hoping the war would weaken the current ruling State in Italy. Eventually Mussolini was kicked out of the Communist Party, and comically Lenin wrote a letter to the Italian Communist Party on how pissed he was that they did that. Because Lenin believed Mussolini was the only Socialist in Italy who had the temperament to launch a Revolution. When Mussolini took over the Fascist Party (Fasci literally means Bundle and was an Alternative to Union in Italy, the original Fascist Party was an International Anarcho-Syndicalist Party). Mussolini dropped the International Party of the Party's name, and advocated to creating a New Italian National State under Syndicalist principles. Using Nationalism instead of the "Worker's Revolution" as the Glue to hold the movement together. He was very successful as well. he turned against the Worker's Revolution and crushed workers Unions when he brought stability to a very unstable Italy post War. After showing his Black Shirts were doing what the Italian Government was failing to do he marched on Rome and took power. Basically launched a bloodless Revolution, King was still in power but the State that ruled the country was now Mussonlin's. As the Italian Fascist movement progressed throughout the 20s/30s they eventually switched from National Syndicalism to their own ideas on syndicalism which would be Fascist Syndicalism, which eventually just evolved into the adoption of Corporatism or as Giovanni Gentile stated "The Corporate State" as the State was at the top of all those Corporations. Rather than crushing the Capitalist out right like say what the Bolsheviks did, they forced them into State owned Trade Unions with the promise they could still run their business but now on the State's Behalf, gave the State control while keeping Industrialist some what happy for the most part. This is why the Austrian Fascist of the 1930s were also Corporatist, and so would be the National Socialist Party in Germany. Which is why Business remained mostly intact under their rules and eventual regime collapses, because they were incorporated into the State but not managed by the State. The Nazis used the term Gleichschaltung: Synchronization to describe this process, which business were Nazified so to speak to make sure they were operating for the good of the Nation/People vs the owner's own personal interest, the owner could still operate as long as they toed the line so to speak. That is how they viewed what a Mixed Economy should be. This is actually why I shake my head when people say these regimes were controlled by Capitalist, when they were literally run by people who believed the State should Monitory/control Capitalist for the good of the Community. Nazis in particular literally believed Capitalism itself to be J**ish, and were very hostile toward it. They were not hostile toward private property, just hostile toward exploitation of capital in a way that hurt the people. So in almost all respects. Fascist/Nazis were Socialist. Just not the same kind of Socialist as say a Marxist Revolutionary. I forgot what book it was, but I remember the author stated "The Nazis were not against Marxist principles, but were against the Marxist movement itself because they believed it was a conspiracy controlled by the J**s." Basically the Nazis believed the J**s were using Capitalism to cause Class Conflict, which in turn they were then using the Classist Revolutionary movement to gain power throughout the world. Basically they believed in a conspiracy theory.
1
@johannhawk8471 Well it's why Fascist economies sometimes get dubbed Proto Keynesian. Keynes had a similar anti capitalistic view, based on socialist principles that capitalism is doomed to fail. In the eyes of Keynes it's interventionism. Hitler it was Autarky. Mussolini it was the Corporate State. All solutions they believed would eliminate the danger of the end Stage of Capitalism which they believed was coming. Both Mussolini and Hitler were former Communist at one time of their lives. So It's just weird why magically people think they loved capitalism so much. When it's more of a misinterpretation of how they viewed the world and their own solutions on how to fix it, for good or bad. PS if you've never heard that Hitler was a Communist in his youth, I'd suggest looking up TIKhistory's So, Hitler was a Communist in 1919. He presents a number of historical narrative contradictions as well, like who were considered on the Far Right or Left during the 1919 Revolution, and how some how it magically switches by 1934. ie those who were fighting on the Communist side magically being the Right Wing Element of the NS Party, while those fighting against the Communist by 1934 being the Left Wing element of the Party? It's a fun observation he points out.
1
@johannhawk8471 Issue with My Kampfy Chair, he likely lied about his entire time in Bavaria. If he was in the Communist party why would he admit he was willingly? based on what information is available, he was elected twice into the Communist Party as a representative to his Unit. His unit was Socialist leaning, so he wouldn't of been elected into that position twice if he himself wasn't socialist leaning. When the Freikorp showed up however Hitler insisted that his unit stay out of the fighting though. Which was either a sign he lost faith, wished to preserve the lives of his friends or himself, or was never a die heart supporter but we don't actually know. Being he willingly risked his life later during his Munich Beer Hall Coup, he definitely wasn't a coward so that one can be crossed out. However he was elected as a representative for his men for the People's State of Bavaria and later the Bavarian Soviet Republic. So not just one government, but two Communist Governments that lasted almost a full year collectively, so it was more than just a month, even if he wasn't a part of it during the entirety. However, we do know Hitler himself didn't become a spokesmen until he joined the German Worker's Party months after the fall of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, a Party that was openly Nationalist, Anti-semitic, Anti-capitalist and Anti-Marxist, yet was Socialist. It already even before Hitler joined it, had all the hallmarks of the National Socialist German Worker's Party. It is very likely that Hitler was a Communist, but changed his views after joining the German Worker's Party.
1
@johannhawk8471 TIKhistory a blessing to man kind literally just uploaded a wonderful video called "The first Nazis EVER - The Czech National Socialist Party" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpsp7Ia28V8 It's very short for a TIKhistory video but he did it because a patreon asked him. But even though the video is 9 minutes it does a great job showing how much a ClusterF*** collectivism and populous movements are as every little cult/group have different ideas. Which is why I often tell people Socialism has to be viewed as a Tree, with the trunk being 18th Century Utopian Socialist primarily, with other groups prior to that being the roots. With countless branches all influencing each other but all different at the same time. Of course some of the movements will be Alien vs another as they're on opposite ends of the tree. It's why 19th Century Nationalism and honestly modern Nationalism grew out of Utopian Socialism as well, and it's related.
1
Well technically you're wrong. Corporations are not examples of Capitalism, but Corporatism. Socialist will say otherwise of course but Corporatism historically is one of Socialism's competitors so of course they will lie about Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of Trade Unionism and was a Moderate less extreme Response to Marxist Syndicalism, and both were born in the 19th Century. There are many forms of Corporations, including State owned Corporations, or Public Owned Corporation. The most common corporation in the world today is Public owned, ie where shares of the company are publicly traded, and just about anyone can buy up shares. With that being said Corporations forfeit their status as Privately owned business as they're no longer part of the Private Sector. Though they may not be part of the State's Public Sector, when a Corporation forms it creates it's own Public Sector. This is why Corporations are like Mini States within the wider State. This is why Corporations have a CEO/President, why they have Boards that Represent the Share Holders, why they have Committees, Bureaucracy, and many other things associated with the Public Sector. Because they are a Public Sector, just not the Central State's Public Sector which is often the largest in most Societies. It's actually why some people state if you like to know what Socialism is like, work for a Corporation, because essentially they operate relatively the same way. However, because they're no longer privately owned companies they loosely and arguably don't' fall under the category of Capitalism. As Private Ownership of the Means of Production is the Core Principle of Capitalism that Separates if from say Mercantilism, Socialism, and other Isms that may or may not have a market economy/money. So what you're hating on is just a form of Trade Unionism, similar to Syndicalism. Just rather than being a Worker Owned Trade Union that owns the factory, it's a Wide proportion of Society who owns the Factory, with some companies ranging from a few hundred to millions of owners. Some Corporations even offer shares of the company to employees, making them Co-owners. Even a CEO is technically just an Employee of the Corporation, paid to manage the company on behalf of the collectivized owners, who can kick them out any time they wish even if they were the original founder of the company.
1
@TheAnnoyedHumanist It has nothing to do with Capital Accumulation at this point. It's about who controls the means of production. Corporations are not Privately owned institutions.
1
@TheAnnoyedHumanist 1. You're getting Marxism mixed up with Socialism. I don't care what the definition Ushanka Show uses, but Socialism has nothing to do with the Working Class. That is Marxism. Marx primarily started the Class element of Socialism. Prior to Marx Socialism had absolutely nothing to do with CLASS. Utopian Socialist and Bourgeois Socialism (Marx made up the term Bourgeois Socialism to critics specific socialist he didn't like) both Pre-date the Class Theory of history, and the war for the working class that modern Socialist advocate, and neither had anything to do with Class. if anything this means Marxism itself appropriated the Term socialism for themselves even though they didn't invent the concept of Socialism. 2. Society is just a Collective Group. The size doesn't matter. Which is why a Society can literally be as small as a club. So even if a Company is not part of the Public Sector State which I explained, it's still it's own Public Sector, it's own society. So you're fundamentally wrong at understanding what Society means. A Trade Union would be it's own Society within the Greater Society. It has it's own leaders, representatives, and hierarchy. But the Trade Union isn't owned by the Union leader. Same thing as a Corporation. There is no single owner or even family of a Corporation, it's a Collectively owned Company. It doesn't have to be the WORKING CLASS or the "STATE" which you're implying when you say Society. Key Distinction with Utopian Socialism: "One key difference between utopian socialists and other socialists such as most anarchists and Marxists is that utopian socialists generally do not believe any form of class struggle or social revolution is necessary for socialism to emerge. Utopian socialists believe that people of all classes can voluntarily adopt their plan for society if it is presented convincingly.[3] They feel their form of cooperative socialism can be established among like-minded people within the existing society and that their small communities can demonstrate the feasibility of their plan for society.[3] Because of this tendency, utopian socialism was also related to radicalism, a left-wing liberal ideology.[6]" ^ this is actually why Ishay Landa's criticisms of Prussian Socialism by Spengler is actually wrong. He concluded that it had nothing to do with Socialism because it was against Marxist theories, and the working Class, even though Marx came after Utopian Socialism and Spengler's Prussian Socialism was built on Pre-Marx socialist principles. Which actually means Ishay Landa doesn't understand Socialism, and views it through a Marxonian lens, apparently the same way you do.
1