know the video author doesn’t actually have much of an understanding of Marxism to begin with, or thinks Marxism isn’t Socialist, neither of which are worth engaging with.
Well, I can’t speak for what the comments suggest, but I can’t say I find anything in his presentation disagreeable, so I suppose I’m not worth engaging with as well 😅
This Socialism is why the PRC managed to eradicate extreme poverty
China still has billionaire business owners, party elites, and a working class that still does not own the means of production despite becoming a world power. I can only assume all of the Chinese who currently suffer in poverty under capitalist businesses in China are simply patriots sacrificing themselves for the great cause.
Well, I can’t speak for what the comments suggest, but I can’t say I find anything in his presentation disagreeable, so I suppose I’m not worth engaging with as well 😅
I’d really rather not watch an hour of what I heard through skimming. If you can give me some points you personally stand by, rather than require I watch an hour long video to engage with you, that would be better in my opinion. I will say, from what I skimmed, he misframes Marx and Engels (despite using direct quotations, he misframes their meaning), and tries to take a simultaneous “Left-Communist” and Anarchist stance.
An example of this misframing is the manner in which the Marxist idea of the State is presented. When going over how the State “withers away,” the video author paints it as though the whole of government withers away, and divorces it from Scientific Socialism. In reality, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat gradually absorbs Private Property into the Public Sector to the degree to which it develops enough to be centrally planned.
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
These errors, along with the general misframing of Lenin, usage of quotations from Bakunin proved false through historical experience, and general framing of Anarchism as “true socialism” and Marxism as “false” simply because Marxists adopted Lenin’s contributions to Marxism leads to a video with lots of quotes and facts cited, but little in the way of actual substance. You may be interested in the article Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” which explains the difference between Socialism as a reality and Socialism as a pure, untainted ideal (that false ideal goes against Marx, ironically enough, as he was a Materialist), though given my admittance to largely ignoring your source I understand if you don’t want to.
China has the same amount of homelessness per capita as the US (2.5 million in total).
Those numbers are from 2011, before the PRC really ramped up its eradication of extreme poverty, which it declared complete in 2021, 10 full years after your source was taken. This is either dishonest framing, or a fun new fact for you to hear about. The point is, this is no longer anywhere close to true now and the PRC is much better than the US when it comes to homelessness now.
China still has billionaire business owners, party elites, and a working class that still does not own the means of production despite becoming a world power. I can only assume all of the Chinese who currently suffer in poverty under capitalist businesses in China are simply patriots sacrificing themselves for the great cause.
This is an anti-Marxist perspective that ignores the entire foundations of Marxism, Scientific Socialism. Again, tapping the Engels quote from earlier, Private Property is absorbed into the Public Sector by the degree to which it has developed sufficiently. At different levels of development, different sectors and different tools, ie markets vs public planning, are better or worse. Markets are good for development initially until they coalesce into monopolist syndicates, which the CPC increases control over and eventually folds into the Public Sector. China is still facing rapid improvements in average Purchasing Power Parity, real wages, and more, and the Private Sector is shrinking. This is because Socialism has stages in the Marxian view. You don’t have to be a Marxist, of course, but it helps to understand Marxism to critique Marxists!
I think a recurring issue between us will be the matter of what historical sources we individually determine to be trustworthy, which is ultimately informing which methods we prefer in achieving socialism.
I think his representation of Marx, Engels, and Lenin are accurate, and that Bakunin’s assertions were proven correct by history. The historical record I trust shows me that scientific communism and central planning are fundamentally incapable of achieving the goals of communism, as despite the material improvements they can make for certain people, they have resulted in extreme unnecessary death and suffering for others.
You could ask me for specifics, and I could point to things like the Holodomor, the Kronstadt Rebellion, etc, and you could point me to your trusted sources that frames those things in a way that would eliminate any cognitive dissonance they may cause.
But the problem is, I don’t trust those sources, nor do you trust mine. In the end, we’re left believing the other has drank the wrong cool-aid, and if only they could see the truth I see, they would understand, and take up the same tools as I.
This is a common enough problem between people, and I know not how to overcome it, short of both of us directly experiencing each of our ideal societies together and determining which is more conducive to the human experience.
Well, I can’t speak for what the comments suggest, but I can’t say I find anything in his presentation disagreeable, so I suppose I’m not worth engaging with as well 😅
China has the same amount of homelessness per capita as the US (2.5 million in total).
China still has billionaire business owners, party elites, and a working class that still does not own the means of production despite becoming a world power. I can only assume all of the Chinese who currently suffer in poverty under capitalist businesses in China are simply patriots sacrificing themselves for the great cause.
I’d really rather not watch an hour of what I heard through skimming. If you can give me some points you personally stand by, rather than require I watch an hour long video to engage with you, that would be better in my opinion. I will say, from what I skimmed, he misframes Marx and Engels (despite using direct quotations, he misframes their meaning), and tries to take a simultaneous “Left-Communist” and Anarchist stance.
An example of this misframing is the manner in which the Marxist idea of the State is presented. When going over how the State “withers away,” the video author paints it as though the whole of government withers away, and divorces it from Scientific Socialism. In reality, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat gradually absorbs Private Property into the Public Sector to the degree to which it develops enough to be centrally planned.
These errors, along with the general misframing of Lenin, usage of quotations from Bakunin proved false through historical experience, and general framing of Anarchism as “true socialism” and Marxism as “false” simply because Marxists adopted Lenin’s contributions to Marxism leads to a video with lots of quotes and facts cited, but little in the way of actual substance. You may be interested in the article Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” which explains the difference between Socialism as a reality and Socialism as a pure, untainted ideal (that false ideal goes against Marx, ironically enough, as he was a Materialist), though given my admittance to largely ignoring your source I understand if you don’t want to.
Those numbers are from 2011, before the PRC really ramped up its eradication of extreme poverty, which it declared complete in 2021, 10 full years after your source was taken. This is either dishonest framing, or a fun new fact for you to hear about. The point is, this is no longer anywhere close to true now and the PRC is much better than the US when it comes to homelessness now.
This is an anti-Marxist perspective that ignores the entire foundations of Marxism, Scientific Socialism. Again, tapping the Engels quote from earlier, Private Property is absorbed into the Public Sector by the degree to which it has developed sufficiently. At different levels of development, different sectors and different tools, ie markets vs public planning, are better or worse. Markets are good for development initially until they coalesce into monopolist syndicates, which the CPC increases control over and eventually folds into the Public Sector. China is still facing rapid improvements in average Purchasing Power Parity, real wages, and more, and the Private Sector is shrinking. This is because Socialism has stages in the Marxian view. You don’t have to be a Marxist, of course, but it helps to understand Marxism to critique Marxists!
2 good articles are Why Public Property? and Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism if you want to go more in-depth.
I think a recurring issue between us will be the matter of what historical sources we individually determine to be trustworthy, which is ultimately informing which methods we prefer in achieving socialism.
I think his representation of Marx, Engels, and Lenin are accurate, and that Bakunin’s assertions were proven correct by history. The historical record I trust shows me that scientific communism and central planning are fundamentally incapable of achieving the goals of communism, as despite the material improvements they can make for certain people, they have resulted in extreme unnecessary death and suffering for others.
You could ask me for specifics, and I could point to things like the Holodomor, the Kronstadt Rebellion, etc, and you could point me to your trusted sources that frames those things in a way that would eliminate any cognitive dissonance they may cause.
But the problem is, I don’t trust those sources, nor do you trust mine. In the end, we’re left believing the other has drank the wrong cool-aid, and if only they could see the truth I see, they would understand, and take up the same tools as I.
This is a common enough problem between people, and I know not how to overcome it, short of both of us directly experiencing each of our ideal societies together and determining which is more conducive to the human experience.