Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Misha Petrov" channel.

@dustinmartin2369 "Comm unism has been done and it failed miserably. " Wrong. None of the mar xist regimes have achieved comm unism yet ... a state less and clas sless society has never been a thing.
31
@dustinmartin2369 "but social ism does not have a gover nment as that would make it com munism." Wrong. Socia lism is an economic system which advocates for collective ownership/control of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods. You can have a government that uses social sm, and that has been the most common form of socia lism. In the marx ist philosophy, it is this very soci alism that is the stepping stone to the proletarian revolution and then into comm unism, which is supposed to be a stateless/governmentless and classless society.
9
@TearThatRedFlagDown : Correct. I was merely telling what the definition of Communism was based on what Marx said about it.
3
" from a state capitalist one" Doesn't exist.
2
Imperialism is not a thing anymore, unless we are strictly talking about what Russia is doing.
2
I would say that the correct answer is zero. "Gender" is a made up term coined by some random John Money dude. It doesn't exist in reality. The proper terms are 'Se x' and 'Sex ual identity/preference'. Former is biological and only has 2 categories + genetic mutation variable, latter is psychological and can have multiple categories.
2
"while the dangers of capitalism, which we suffer daily, are kept secret. LMAO" You don't even have capitalism, hun. You have a mixed economy... and the dangers come from the government.
2
"I can say the same about the pure US camitalism: didn't people die of hunger due to Great Depression? Didn't US invade countries looking for oil. .. khm.. nuclear weapons... So dumb.." What does this have to do with capitalism exactly? Stop blaming capitalism for the failures of a government. Not to mention, there is no "pure US capitalism" in the first place, since the US has a mixed economy just like 99% of the modern countries.
2
"Every "communist" country is not actually communist, its a twisted version of socialism." No country has ever achieved communism as of yet. They all had just socialism. There is no "twisted" version. There is just socialism, and it general leads to bad things.
2
"Capitalism is destroying itself." Capitalism is not even a thing in any country and it cannot destroy itself.
2
"After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves Na tion al So cialis ts! We want to start by implementing so ciali sm in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are s ociali st that they can address themselves to international soc iali sm." — Adolf "We are so ciali sts because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right… Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, so cialis m must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Ma rxis m at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming so cia list nat ional state.“ — Joseph Goebbels
2
@bsauerapple9024 : Wrong. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on national syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It was strictly anti-capitalist movement.
1
" I feel that social democracy will rise in popularity in the next 100 years." It won't. Its an unsustainable model.
1
@dandelionsoup3246 : The thing is... you can only be int erse x via gen etic muta tion, so by definition, it is a bir th defe ct.
1
There has yet to be a "democratic socialist state". Chile isn't one.
1
It's not even capitalism. It's a mixed economy.
1
TikTok doesn't work that way. It's just you and your Am erica, not Ch ina. Ironically the Chinese government forces their equivalent to have more educational content, while ame ricans just flood it with random and useless content themselves. You did this to yourself.
1
USSR was a prime example of how socialism simply does not and will not work.
1
To be fair, it is a fact though. It wasn't comm unism that kil led those people, it was marxi sm / marx ists. None of the marx ist regimes have achieved comm unism yet.
1
You dont have capitalism.
1
@Juii_030 : Wrong. It is a socialist country.
1
You don't have a capitalist system nor a capitalist government. You have a mixed economy.
1
@thedude9941 : Conservatism has nothing to do with left/right though.
1
@thedude9941 "in the political sense it has everything to do with right wing politics" Wrong. Has nothing to do with Right at all. Conservatism is a completely relative term and changes country-by-country basis, depending on what is considered to be traditional there.
1
@thedude9941 : People who are "as right wing as you get" would be Anarcho-Capitalists or Liberals... or in America, "libertarians".
1
@bsauerapple9024 "capitalism is why they don’t have a fair wage." What is a mythical "fair wage" exactly?
1
"People often confuse communism and socialism with totalitarianism, which you are doing." No. Both communism and socialism generally lead to totalitarianism, since such enforced collectivism is the only way they can function properly.
1
@bsauerapple9024 "Second Thought video or Hasan" ... which both are champagne socialists and also have no clue what they are talking about.
1
There is no such th ing as "late stag e capita lism". It do esn't exi st.
1
@parabellum4622 "Late stage capitalism is referring to capitalism at the strain of it's cycle. Capitalism was not designed nor can account for 8 billion people. " Again, such a thing doesn't exist. Capitalism was specifically designed to work with people doing business with each other without any middlemen, like the government. The book "The Wealth of Nations" is still relevant today.
1
@idrk7509 : Again, they used so ciali sm. Soc ialis m is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. That is what they had and what they did. They did not achieve co mm unis m.
1
@bsauerapple9024 : Yes, you would.
1
@licoriceimpression7561 : You just have no clue what you are talking about. Adolf was 100% so ciali st in every single way and he also was very proud of it. However it is true that Nat ional soc ialism and co mmun ism are worlds apart, however Nati onal socia lism is quite close to mar xism. In fact, Adolf himself said that without the concept of "superior race" they would be almost the same.
1
@licoriceimpression7561 : Na tionaliz ing the economy is EXACTLY what so ciali sm is, or at least one form of soc ialis m. So cialis m is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. That's what the nati onal so ciali sts did. They tried to nationalize everything under the NS DAP, including economy, social activities, labor unions etc. NS DAP owned the means of production, they controlled the economy and had the final say what the industry was supposed to produce and do. That is a tot alitar ian form of soc iali sm and close to what Lenin did.
1
@licoriceimpression7561 : Bunch of what Adolf said about so cialis m was to distinguish his idea from the prevalent mar xism. But go ahead and look what they did, I can mention some here already: nationalizing the labor unions, nationalizing the economy, nationalizing the social and leisure activities (Strength through Joy), nationalizing the industry and the State owning the means of production. They opposed lib eral cap italism, but also international socia lism, hence the concept of a “third way,” their centralized economic policies obeyed colle ctivist and so cialist principles, openly opposing capit alism and the free market, favoring nationa lism and autarchy.
1
@licoriceimpression7561 : Also again, nationalization falls under the definition of soc iali sm: Nationalization or collectivization is the process of transforming privately-owned assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state. , the moment you take the means of production away from the individual, you go from ca pital ism to so ciali sm. "state ca pitali sm" is an oxym oron and doesn't exist. If a collective, group, state or whatever entity is interfering with the economy / market and controlling (or owning) what industries can or cannot do with their factories, it is soc ialism. That is called centralized / planned economy.
1
@licoriceimpression7561 : He kil led mar xists yes, soci alists, not really.
1
@licoriceimpression7561 : Fas cists, Nati onal soc ialists, Marxi sts and com mu nists are all soc iali sts since so cia lism is an umbrella term. And of course m arxis m and co mmuni sm are different. Co mmuni sm is supposed to be the "end goal".
1
@licoriceimpression7561 : Unregulated or pure capi talism has never been practiced, that is correct yes. Again, only ma rxist soc ialism cares about the workers owning the means of production. So cial sm cares only about if the means of production are owned by someone else than individuals. Doesn't specify nor care who.
1