Comments by "jean-louis pech" (@jean-louispech4921) on "TheDC Shorts"
channel.
-
11
-
6
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnstewart45
LOL we are speaking of socialism not about capitalism and private property.
Then all your example is useless.
Everybody is the owner at equal status, this is the collective power.
Pure capitalist politic generate poverty and misery , like all along the 19th century.
And again by going against regulation, the USA are making rising the poverty while only a little hand of riches gather the wealth generated.
Yes speaking of economic growth is nice, but when we see for each range of wealth their effective economic growth each year it look bad for many Americans.
What is say is the result of research about the history of socialism idiot, then keep your false lessons for you.
The fat is that countries where parties with real socialist philosophy had power are among the best countries in term of individual freedom, global quality of life, etc....
Like we can see in western Europe, where socialist or social democrat parties get the head of governments, making the society more free, better place to live.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hairedesigned3833
youtube strange :i have several versions of your message, the last one is not full..... i have lost your longer message.....
well
1) what you say does not go against what i say because taking for himself (egoist/egocentric drive) is capitalist not socialist. Socialism being based on equality and unity is about sharing wealth not taking for himself.
Real socialism is about working together and sharing the wealth produced, and not lower level ( the workers ) working and higher level ( the capitalists ) taking the wealth. The opening message is just a big liar.
2) you are missing the point of socialism versus capitalism.
It is not a question of free market, this is a question of power!
The power taken from the capital by the capitalist on the workers.
I guess you are totally ignorant of the capitalism of the 19th century, before socialist idea were slowly infused in democratic society.
What made lower the poverty was the better sharing of wealth and better condition of worker given by socialist ideas, else it is only very rich capitalist and workers living in misery without rights and freedoms.
Look western countries where socialist or near socialist ( social democracy) governments have ruled, they offer better living condition , less misery, more rights and freedoms for workers, etc....
If it is not socialist or near socialist it is Worker's Union fight that help worker to have a better life standard as worker.
In the 19th century capitalist was limitless, and the workers were living in misery. Then one century of capitalist did not reduce poverty.
On the other hand socialist and communist pressure on capitalist societies helped worker to get a better wage, better working condition, more rights and freedoms, etc....
In fact you are just using the ego centered view of the capitalist who think only to himself, and unable to think about non capitalist people (workers, etc... ), and then reduce society and economy to a game between the capitalists discarding the reality of the majority of the population, discarding the game of power from the capitalism.
In fact you are confusing economic liberalism with capitalism, a system of hereditary corporation owning all the market, is capitalist if the capital is owned by the members of the families, giving them the right to rule the enterprises and peoples in the enterprises, and defending their private interest before all , while there is no free market.
Self made man or hereditary , does not answer to the real problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheHilltopPillbox
Well i see you are unable to acknowledge what is pure capitalism, what kind of society it gives, and then you speak in the void.
You are unable to understand that western Europe have some social politics originated from socialist movement, that was fought by defenders of the pure capitalism.
I speak about socialism not about stalinism or other eastern authoritarians regimes you are out of subject, don't came with confusion from propaganda. You should recall me that north korea is a democracy too if we follow your ignorance coming from propaganda of authoritarians regimes that do not follow definition of socialism ....
You are the one making mistake, i just have real knowledge about what is capitalism and socialism.
I know that pure capitalism is about workers living in misery because capitalism have all the power and not limitation in their greed.
You don't care about facts, history, then keep your useless lessons.
The fact is if non capitalists peoples are not poor, in misery in western countries this is because there was sharing policies imposed to the capitalists against their will, by socialist and left wing movements.
Then this is not because of capitalism that people are not poor, because it is against capitalism principle : the power of decision only to the owners of private capitalist property deciding for their selfish interest.
You are useless you don't know what is socialism, all the name you are speaking are country that do not follow definition of socialism.
For the french socialist Pierre Leroux socialism was defined by "freedom, equality, fraternity, together without loosing one member" he was the guy making this three values the values of the new French Republic in 1848, for other socialist thinker , socialism could be defined by democratic politic and economic power.
None of the countries you are naming are close to this definition, then you are useless, you just bring lies with your "socialist paradise".
You are really stupid because now china is a capitalist paradise, where capitalist companies can exploit Chinese workers at low price. You have no argument else lioes and bad propaganda for brainless peoples.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheHilltopPillbox
Free education and free healthcare are the base for anybody for becoming a free individual. But you need to have a deeper thinking than, what you are doing for understanding that, you need to understand long term effects.
Utopian socialism has never been realized, by definition.
On the other hand, socialist, social democrat, parties in Europe have made the countries better by applying socialist policies when they were in Governments.
This is why social democracy made the Nordic countries the countries with more freedom and equality, with better level of human development.
Then Nordic countries offer good access to education and healthcare for all ( well the perfection is not of our world ) .
Countries where education and healthcare are not free for all, have less freedoms, lower human development index, etc.... In fact it is just logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@icet0p100
But Marx is not all the socialism .... There are many trends not associated with Marx, with many thinker who have made definitions of socialism before.
When we speak about socialism it is for speaking about other trends than Marx.
And even the socialism of Marx is about democratic institutions (assemblies) ruled by workers and common citizen, his model of reference is the Commune of Paris.
Cuba is not about democratic institutions ruled by workers, but only the rule of the party.
Capitalism is about the rule of the stronger, and under capitalism the stronger is the one who have the bigger capital. This is why capitalist nations are about strong relations between the state and the big capital ( the best proof the war in Iraq in 2003 ).
Oh one thing about Marx, like he said one time Marx is not Marxist, and does not see his ideas in political movement called Marxist, and he would loathe on stalinism and other thing label Marxist-Leninist that share no political element with his vision of socialism .
Then don't bring Marx when you speak about regimes labeled communist or socialist, and having a link with stalinism.
"So, I don't think Socialism has any real democratic assemblies"
socialism is defined by socialists and not you. Then your beliefs are not an argument.
If i am wrong, then give me the name of the great leader who had all the power in the Commune of Paris in 1871. Which is the socialist experience of reference for Marx as socialist model for him.
Well i will spare you time : there is none, the power was in an elected assembly. Showing that you think wrong.
Speaking of socialism without knowing anything to socialism else propaganda from all sides of the pacific ocean, is useless.
In Cuba it is the state in the hand of a bourgeoisie who own the economy. Like said already, this is not socialism, this is not Marxism too( i mean real Marxism following the philosophy of Marx without adding any 20th century Russian elements).
Western Europeans countries are not socialist but : socialist trend have heavily influenced the societies inside democratic governments, this is why in western Europe public service are more important, there are less wealth inequality, less crime rate, better health system (while not perfect), etc... instead of making a society only in the hand of greedy capitalists. Without all this socialists influence,s well the situations in western Europe would be more more ugly.
Along the cold war, in fact making the social situation of workers, and average citizen, very bad was forbidden because of the fear of a communist revolution. Between then end of the WWI ( reconstruction and reject of far right ideas ) and this, it allowed western European countries to have the greatest progressive politics.
1
-
@icet0p100
The fact is that in practice socialism has democratic experience. The Commune of Paris was an assembly elected by peoples of Paris without any supreme leader or anything looking like a chief, a real socialist experience but too short. And this experience became the practical model for Marx for a socialist revolution.
The practice that you are speaking is not socialism , it is leninism, stalinism, etc.... who switch the power for the workers/citizens by the power to the party , and with stalin a strong leader above.
IN practice, the history says that after the Russian revolution socialist parties in western countries were split in two : socialist parties more reformists and staying in a democratic way, and communists more evolutionary who were taking the soviet experience as model.
And with stalin taking the power, he has parasited all the communist parties i the world, with strong antagonism with the more reformists and democratic socialists parties.
Only the rising of nazism and fascism in the 30's pushed some political alliances in western countries like in France with the Popular Front , while in the Spanish war Stalin made kill some socialists, anarchists, etc... while being in the same side......
And then in non western countries, and in particular in eastern countries, it was stalinism that was the model of the so called communist revolution. Stalin would no support a real socialist experience, because it goes against his ideology, this is why he left the Spanish republicans while taking the gold of the revolution.
This is the proof that in fine socialism and stalinism and other "marxism leninism" are not friends and cannot being confused.
This is the reality that the right wing propaganda hide to everybody.
The so called "marxism leninsm" is not socialism, because it does not fit with the definition of socialism, not more with the philosophy of Marx.
I must recall that the rule of a party on the state and economy by the state , is not socialism. The name of the party does no matters.
Socialist do not defend this type of system.
Stop to give to socialists ideas against their own ideas.
Stop to take the propaganda from stalin, mao, etc... for true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@miker3875
"I would contend you don't have to be a socialist to believe in worker's rights and protecting the individual. "
But it is socialism!
This is why socialism is born because of the state of capitalist countries in the 19th century.
Without socialist movements in western countries, there would have far less regulation, protections, good wage (and not for everybody now), etc....
Non regulated market does no offer opportunity to everybody to seek individual happiness, like the American system who does not allow some poor family to get health care to their children, and then making the young children death rate of some categories of the population ( poor blacks ) at the level of third world countries , far under the score the poor Cuba.
Peoples with compassion, don't refuse healthcare to children, greedy heartless conservatives and libertarianism yes.
Socialism, the real socialism from western Europe, is a left wing ideology, and scientific study about relation between ideologies and neurology show that progressive peoples use more their empathy than conservatives peoples ( who are sensitives to disgust without regulation by empathy ) .
Yes socialism is about compassion for the weak, the peoples suffering, the exploited workers, etc....
Egalitarians ideologies are about compassion for all , equal dignity.
Inequalitarians ideologies are about dignity for a dominant minority ( or just self ) , and lack of compassion for oppressed social minorities ( while it can be the majority of the population ).
The USA spend too much money in army and jails. And conservatives who are anti socialists like to give money in army and jails. This is not a good example.
Public Healthcare are the best Healthcare services in the world. Nations with good NHS have the best result with health of the population as a whole ( not just the riches ).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Roger Dodger
This is not their idea, but your false ideas about socialism.
Just by knowing that socialist anarchism and theoretical final purpose of Marxism , is a stateless society, make your claims a joke.
The reality is before socialism birth you had one or some capitalism making millions while workers were living in misery and in harsh conditions of work ( mutilations and death were not rare thing in the industry at this time), they have no rights at work, and no political rights, the political power was reserved to the riches in addition of the economic power ( equal rights of vote is an idea from the french left revolutionaries ) , and no access to healthcare for sure.
It is all about power. The plutocratic, oligarchic power of the capitalism against the democratic power of the socialism. The privilege to get healthcare and right of vote for the riches against healthcare,education, and right of decision for all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kaizer Zotac
you are just a liar and just say bad propaganda about socialism.
You are one of the joker who takes the propaganda of totalitarians regimes for right.
Socialism is democracy on political and economic level . This is why it is opposed to capitalism
There is no forced redistribution because under socialism economic property is collective , and then it belongs to everyone. Go learn about socialism before saying stupidities.
On the other hand capitalism FORCES peoples to stay out of some resources because the resource is privatized and this peoples are poor. And it cans include some vital resources. While with collective property this problem does not exist by nature.
You don't understand what is democracy : democracy is a COLLECTIVE POWER where everyone has the same level of power, and decisions are taken by discussions and choice of all members of the collective ( with rules for making a final decisions when there is not unanimity ) .
You have direct democracy , for small collective, like a village or an enterprise , or indirect democracy for bigger collectives like cities, regions , nation, or big enterprises.
And democracy in enterprises is .... socialism.
For a state configuration, the state can be called really socialism only if the state is democratic on political level.
Cooperatives are the typical socialist enterprises.
Planned market is not what define socialism, socialism was born for giving the power to the workers who create wealth by their work, instead of the power of the capitalist who are exploiting workers. Socialism anarchism has no state for example.
On the other hand capitalism is the rule of a minority (the capitalists) over the majority of the workers/employees. In non regulated capitalism like under the 19th century, capitalism was capitalist FORCING worker to live in harsh condition, with a misery wage. AND because the power of the capitalism is not democratic , workers could not do anything. The politic system who was in line with the capitalism was the system that British, Americans and French ( else in Republican period) get after their classic liberal revolution : riches men voting for riches men.
All real socialist experience like the French Commune of Paris, are based on an elected assembly without chief. This is Socialism. Then you are just proving that you know nothing about socialism else what totalitarians and capitalist propaganda say.
Economic Democracy, is just historic, real , socialism, rebranded, after one century of vilification of socialism by propaganda from totalitarians ans capitalist, well it is none trend among others.
https://www.economicdemocracy.us/economic-democracy
here the proof that you are an ignorant :
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/what-is-democratic-socialism-definition/
just for the broad definition of socialism :
"Socialism is a political ideology that advocates for an egalitarian redistribution of wealth and power in society through a democratic ownership and distribution of society’s means of production (producing goods and making money)."
If you believe otherwise, it is because you have been brainwashed by propaganda of stalin, mao, etc..... who wanted to make believe to the mass that their dictatorships were socialism, it is just manipulation from totalitarian systems. Oh nazism share 0% of the definition of socialism, it was just a label for trapping the workers in the hand of racist German nationalism.
Stalinism and Maoism are not socialism they are just bureaucratic dictatorship, they can't fit under socialist label.
1
-
@upbtvo2585
Yes a society with low economic inequality ( using socialist redistribution ) are healthier, they have lower crime rate than societies with high level of inequalities, allow peoples to have the FREEDOM to access to many of important services.
A society without redistribution and public service, is a society where what drives the decision of peoples is not the individual will and needs but only money , how money you can get, how money you can afford, etc...
Authoritarianism being described by : when what drives the person is external and superior to the individual.
Then a full private society is an authoritarian society, because the real drive of the society is money, (external to the person) and is considered as superior to the individual : you can't pay? sorry you will die of this curable disease.
In areal individualist society, the need of the individual matters more than money. The functional socialist society like Scandinavians countries , is more individualist than societies based on privates services. The best proof is that they are on the top of individual freedoms in the world world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
North Korea is an authoritarian hereditary monarchy, nothing to do with socialism.
Socialism is anti monarchic, and against single ruler.
State is nothing in itself, it is just a tool, what defines the political side is how you use the state.
Left wing state is at the service of all the population, the majority, like with social democracy in Nordic countries and some politic from other western countries.
Right wing state is at a service of the dominant minorities. Like before the revolutions, the state was at the service of the monarchy, the nobles and the clergies. Right wing politic in USA leads to put the state at the service of big corporations like weaponry, oil, etc.... And the last Iraq's war was the best example of a right wing state in action.
state = left , no state = right is wrong and just for the brainwashed who can't understand complexity and prefer simple ideas.
1
-
1