Comments by "Michael Mappin" (@michaelmappin1830) on "Democratic Socialism Explained w/Christo Aivalis" video.
-
Socialism has nothing to do with giving power the one person. Socialism is the opposite. It's a bottom-up system. That's why it's not prone to corruption. Capitalism is prone to corruption because it's a top-down system. It's an undemocratic hierarchical system that concentrates power and wealth at the top of the Apex. Those at the bottom are kept in the state of dependency and have virtually no control over their workplace environment.
In regards to Venezuela, you're engaging in extreme over-simplification and black and white thinking. United States has been at war with Venezuela for almost 19 years! Why don't you check out the National Security archive. Second, Venezuela is a capitalist country. The capitalist still have control. Something like 80% of industry is in the private sector, as with Healthcare and employment. the workers do not own and control their own labour and resources. So how can you call this Democratic socialism? :-) Democratic socialism is democratic! One worker gets one vote. That's democratic. Under capitalism the number of votes is determined by the number of shares you control. If you can afford a million shares, then you get a million votes! That's the opposite of democratic. That's autocratic! that's why when the shareholders vote to cut safety standards and poison the water supply, as we saw in Flint Michigan, they have the power to do it. the workers are helpless. when they voted to move production to China, again, the workers were left destitute! and that's why Democratic systems are far Superior to top-down dictatorships. and here you are, arguing in favour of plutocracy, while trying to convince people that Fighting For Freedom will lead to Armageddon!
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monkeystank5241 , I did answer your question! Every country that attempted to go socialist was overthrown! For example, the USSR! In 1917 United States, Canada, Britain and Japan sent troops into Russia to stop the workers from achieving their goals! And that's why and how Stalin achieve power! Just since 1945 the United States has bombed over 30 countries. They have attempted to assassinate the leaders of forty countries. Then you have Afghanistan, chili, excetera, excetera. What happened to the Paris commune? That was overthrown!
Venezuela is not socialist. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? something like 80% of the Venezuelan economy and employment is in the private sector! That makes them capitalist! They have a capitalist economy. the United States has been at War with Venezuela for almost 19 years! Their economic problems are largely due to us imperialism! That is a fact! so why in the hell would you pick the least socialist country as an example? if you're going to start referring mixed capitalist economy is as socialism, then you shouldn't be pointing at Venezuela, you should be pointing at Country such as Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Etc.
The USSR was not socialist or communist. the state was in control of capital. when the state is in control of capital, that's what we refer to as state capitalism. calling them socialist or communist would be like calling a meat eater a vegan. Just because Stalin or Hitler call themselves socialists, that doesn't mean they actually are! Words have meaning!
in the USSR and China, did the workers own and control their own resources and labour? did they have a democracy? No! So how can you possibly be calling these places socialist? And another thing, the USSR did not collapse because of their economic system. the country was forced into bankruptcy because they couldn't afford the military spending required to maintain adequate defense against the threat of the United States. Russia did not want to spend most of their money building nuclear bombs and other such weapons on defense! They couldn't afford it. United States with constantly threaten their country, flying bombers into their airspace, Etc. If USSR hadn't have built a massive military and nuclear defense, the United States would have bombed them right back to the Stone Age like they did with Iraq! I'm sure that you're aware at least of that much! So don't tell me that it was their economic system, because that's not true. if you're unaware of these facts, then I suggest you get yourself a library card and do some research.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monkeystank5241 , socialism evolve out of the French Revolution. In the French Parliament you had people that sat on the left of the building and people that sat on the right. Those sat on the left were against hierarchy. Those that sat on the right where supporters of hierarchy. Socialism evolved from there. It falls on the left side of the political Spectrum along with anarchism. National socialism, which is a form of fascism, falls on the right side of the political Spectrum. It is the ultimate form of hierarchy. The USSR was not socialist. A socialist hierarchy would be a contradiction in terms. Stalin was a dictator. You can't have a socialist or communist dictator. That would be like having a non-hierarchical monarchy. Monarchies are another form of hierarchy. Hierarchy is what the Socialists and anarchists are against! again, I can sit here and eat meat and call myself a vegan at the same time! But by doing so, I'd be a hypocrite, because those are antithetical terms.
under the Communist system there is no hierarchy, no state, no classes, and no money! Both China and the USSR used money as a tool for social organization. that fact alone disqualifies them from being communist.
socialism and communism are not top down systems. They are bottom up systems. The exact opposite. And that is why they're on the opposite ends of the political Spectrum.
any discussion of fascism must emphasize 7 basic concepts that are found in all fascists.
Irrationalism,
social Darwinism,
nationalism,
the state,
the principle of leadership,
racism,
the corporate economy.
the first two concepts are best seen as basic themes that are rarely explicitly stated but which are part of the other four. All seven of these concepts are intimately interrelated, they cannot be separated from the others. however, it is necessary the analyze them separately to understand them.
irrationalism: the basic assumption is that man is not a rational being. He need not be reasoned with and cannot be reasoned with, he can only be led and manipulated.
social Darwinism: it is the name generally given to social theories that view Life as a struggle for survival within each species as well as between species. In Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection 1859, there is found the statement that life evolves through a struggle for survival between the species. fascists / National socialists applied this idea to their theories of nationalism and race! socialism, on the other hand is Against Racism and class division. the idea is that we are all Brothers and Sisters of the world. Fascism is the exact opposite! They believe that the superior race will eventually dominate, eradicating everyone else, without exception!
Nationalism: it is the most important aspect of national socialism / fascism. all the members of society are supposed to support the state above anything else. an individual is first and foremost a member of the nation to which he gives all of his loyalty, his dedication, and his love.
@Sonny Redlinger , I'm not going to go over the next three elements. Instead I'm going to skip to the final part of the ideology which is the most difficult to understand, The corporate economy. I'll do that later, when I have time. But basically, fascism and capitalism are connected. Socialism, on the other hand, is anti-capitalist. Again, that's why socialism is on the left and both capitalism and fascism are on the far right of the political Spectrum. As capitalism moves further to the right, it eventually transitions into fascism! Fascism is basically late-stage capitalism. Socialism is moving in the opposite direction, toward communism. Again, this is not my opinion. This is well-documented fact, dating back to the French Revolution. Claiming otherwise is both a-historical and empirically false.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1