“Christian’s must be anarchist” everyone probably should be.

31:44 you can add the economic calculation problem, which still shows that even if people work like normal, the ressources are still allocated incorrectly due to central planning being faulty. Therefore even if people did the right thing, communism couldn't work.

#13th view

The way that productive property(IE: means of production)are utilized in a collective ownership model entails some manner or another of democratization in the decision-making. So depending on the scale and size of the workforce, some degree of formal hierarchy(management)would exist, but leaders are accountable to the workforce and the workforce must practice decision-making collectively. Tangentially related to this, your point on incentives to work. The operative idea in the question of relations of production is to de-alienate people from labor; currently, you go to work because it is necessary to survive(you need money to attain your means of subsistence--food, shelter, clothes, etc.)but the work you do is not your own, the labor and the product of your labor is for the benefit of the employer; consciously or unconsciously, there is always an awareness of this. Therefore, work becomes a sacrifice--you spend the majority of your time there as a means to an end. The employer has an incentive to overwork employees because profit is the motive driving production; the employer has you work 8+ hours, not necessarily because there's actually 8 hours worth of work necessary, but because they can. The profit-motive and the laws of competition incentivize longer-working hours for the least amount of pay. Eliminating the profit-motive behind production(IE, abolishing private property)as well as automating the production process as much as possible means that significantly *less* work would be required in production, so that alone makes motivating people to work far easier(going to work for a few hours today and then having the day for yourself, VS whole day and most of your energy sacrificed to work.) ((This is also in the context of a post-scarcity society, which arguably we've already achieved, it's merely a matter of how goods are distributed)) Coupled with that, workers having direct *agency* and *responsibility* in how work is conducted, working amongst equals as a team where your voice genuinely matters--as opposed to taking orders from an unaccountable boss without dignity--makes work itself more personally fulfilling and gratifying. And when one feels that their work is of importance and not just to make somebody else rich, the work becomes that much more rewarding. As a final thought on this front, if you've ever been unemployed--or, simply, decided to take a vacation longer than, say, 1-2 months--you likely know how agonizing idleness is--eventually you reach a point where you feel you HAVE to do something productive, anything other than wasting time and feeling useless. The objective is to make work no longer feel like work, but something fulfilling and rewarding, and reconfiguring the *relations* of production is part of that process.

Why "scarce"? People could argue/fight over a small pile of dirt to the point where it'd be necessary to determine ownership.

People tend to lack the brain cells required to understand that if they had all the money, they would have all the responsibility to provide the masses with new things they want more than old things. They fail to realize that the enjoyment and satisfaction they get out of the things produced and marketed to them is truly worth the cost presented to the consumer. The urge to cling to an ideal state so foreign to your own personal cultural roots, in order to embed infantile insecurities within the governing structure of your country, is the result of invasion. The openness and liberalism of this country tolerating the influx of foreign ideology unchecked and void of based scrutiny, along with the standardization of a hyper-empathetic national identity, has plagued us with a plethora of severe identity crises. The people who need to make the most concessions with one another and set their differences aside most urgently, are those who have the least amount of natural differences. Coordinating our efforts to produce a result that we can all come to agree would be beneficial is the only thing we ought to be concerned with at this point. If we think the only idea or system that is necessary is that which our easily corruptible egos have settled on, whether it be fundamentally extreme or otherwise, then we will be an anchor dragging this country to the depths of the ocean floor.

dude imagine if this guy actually lived in a soviet or post soviet country

17:15 Actually, even this is wrong. The real answer is a certain family that rhymes with moth wilds, in other words, the people who run all the banks.

44 minutes of garbage 💀

“Relationships in capitalism are from free will” *tell me another joke*

Bro said work or die as if in Communists states you can choose not to work

How would a capitalist invest in an innovation if it doesn't benefit the people? The goal is to provide services to the people to make a profit, if no one is going to buy it then it fails.

How much would a doctor be valued over a janitor? What brings this value?

you know that concentration camps were made by private investment? you know, that Germany was one of the most profitable countries in the second world war? i know you don't know cuz you don't read.

bro actually doesn't know what privatization means, nah bro, you can't even read most likely

if that hipotetical 'jesus' known Capital by hearth, he would be a capitalist, Capital is about how capitalism works, it's not a Socialist nor how to do socialism book, just read for god's sake

you ancaps are hypocritical, you always say 'better dead then red' and yet you cry when you face a wall. curious

no, business owners are not 'bad' nor evil, the point is that they are in their position not due to their own fault or skill, but because the system is designed it the way that they in their positions, they become bad when they are fighting for the system and the continuation of oppression, please read a book about a anything before you talk.

bro really said market=capitalism, bro read an actual economics book, maybe some Richard Wolff

wow you are so stupid, you don't even see a difference between production and resources.

See how all quasi-libertarians use very abstract and divorced from reality examples for their arguments like two people with one stick on an island. How tf is this relevant to modern industrial capitalism with extremely complicated and sophisticated supply chains involving millions of humans. How tf can the property relations of a FUCKING STICK tell us anything about the modern day economy.

Bread Tube producers are morons, im yet to be convinced the virtues of communism

China is a state run by the CCP

Bro really said that less restrictions on access to food would cause MORE starvation.

1. Collectivism = Priority of a group rather than individuals 2. Even if its given by the state does not mean the state controls it 3. Socialism is the abolishment of economic classes(proletariat and bourgeoisie) not the authorization of the proletariat to take from the bourgeoise 4. Uncontacted native tribes don't have a concept of property 5. Feudalism is where a lord(a land-owning person) has a serf work their fields, the serf pays tribute to the lord who (in most cases) pays tribute to the king, in 1861 Alexander II passed reforms that effectively ended feudalism, capitalism taking its place, also "but didn't they use a different system though" is a stupid excuse as it undermines the progress made by communism and the harm done with it removed 6. Ever heard of lobbying. 7. Wah, wah taxes. Taxes aren't stealing, they help build roads, libraries, etc. not just waste away in some old man's pockets. 8. Poverty exists(who knew) saying you willingly work is a lie because people work because they fear starving(buffoon). 9. The gov't(short for government)[and unions] keeps corporations in check, minimum wage is higher than $0.01/hr. because of them. In a corporatist society 1% of the 1% would have all the money 10. Companies wouldn't have to pay taxes at all in corporatism, instead of finding legal loopholes 11. You sound like Corporatist anarchists, oh wait, you're spouting the same exact lies, you're sure you're libertarians? Also you're spouting anti-capitalist claims -please don't associate with us. With how much conspiratorial BS your spewing, you may as well be Republicans. 12. Because they are funded by massive PACs and corporations to give them benefits 13. Removing prices is a good thing. Distribution is much better now than is was even 50 years ago although it would still take days to travel across Siberia and it's not like the soviet union was the biggest country to exist(in its time period) 14. People are not forced to work under communism(forgetting about conscription), they choose to work 15. Socialism doesn't cause needless suffering, unlike capitalism where homeless people exist and anti-homeless utilities(for lack of a better word), which cost more than just paying people livable unemployment payments. 16. Capitalism's logical conclusion is a single corporation owning everything, even people. Socialism's is a society where all people get what they need and are treated equally. The projection is off the charts. Also, if socialism is torturing the child that is the capitalist class, capitalism is being chased around by 18 babies with machine guns that have a vendetta against you while wearing a clowns hat and a cow bell. 17. Did bro just say he hates evidence, how fitting, actually.

"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." Just because libertarians wont give up om wrong points doesnt make you correct. Just because communists have to combat an infinite ammount of arguments within finite time doesnt make us wrong.

Read a fucking book

im an anti commie but come on dude this video sucks

Can you spread your ignorance a little more please? At least it is nice to see you ratioed like this in comments 😂😂

....all of those government things you listed at the very beginning of the segment were fought for by socialists.

Don't watch this. Its just rage bait

AIdiot

Holy ratio

"is the CIA Socialist" these morons: "YES!!!" like dude, what?

Great demonstration of the ignorance that is required to be an an-cap. Please educate yourselves!

Would never ever be a communist, but I kinda see libertarianism on the same level of communism lmao

Japanese soldier who kept fighting 29 years after the war had ended

Heres a question im surprised socialists cant usually answer in depth What is a commune? (Which is why socialism and communism aren't the same thing, and why i think this couldve been better informed.)

You silly silly little man

This goes to show the amount work that is going to be needed to actually educate the people on socialism

bro knows nothing about communism

6 veiws on a 27 minutes vid is crazy

anarcho capitalism is like dry water, or a stupid genius or wet fire

ur such a yapper, three seconds in ur already drawing out an entire multi paragraph essay by misinterpreting what bro said also why do u think property rights benefit u as an individual bro, you labor is property, if u have more property "rights" that just means that other people have the right to commodify the things you need and force you to sell your "property" in order to get back the very thing u need and leech off of u in the process.

holy yap

riddle me this dumbfck, what separates an institution that doesn't care about you (capital) from one that at a bare minimum pretends to care about you (the state)? The answer is one is essentially a massive corporate behemoth that doesn't care about you, anyone, or anything except its financial incentives, and the other is (or at least tries to be) democratically and collectively owned either through a liberal/bourgeois democracy or thru a socialist one. The former has an opposing interest to you, to take as much value from the working class and which opposes your interest of keeping as much value u produce. These two interests cannot coexist, one will eventually overtake the other resulting in collapse of capitalism, either thru armed revolutionary struggle or through the system's own stupidity and first world American cucks like you pretending to enjoy it.

It's not cool to dismiss a 40 minute video 3 minutes in but one of you guys saying "the way I see it, they're the same" means you literally don't know what you are talking about and it would be a waste of time to continue. Like, you can't demonstrate complete ignorance of the subject you're covering and expect people who know better to listen to you. I want to find worthwhile content that challenges my views, but I never can.

Your grasp on communist theory is so hilariously incompetent it makes me wonder whether the whole video is just a reeeaaally dedicated improv comedy skit

I will not bad mouth you. I will however define socialism for you. Socialism as defined by Marx was the step between our current system and communism. Communism was defined by Marx as a classless moneyless stateless society. Later socialism was defined by the fact that it would be workers controlling the means of production. I e everyone working at a Ford automobile plant would own and operate the equipment and the factory, as well as make decisions collectively for said factory. This would allow the workers to not have their labor extracted from them and they would earn their full wage.

A clear lack of understanding of what "collective ownership over the means of production" means. Equating that to two people and a stick is very much in a vacuum and does represent reality. It sound more like you are using the idea of personal property and applying it to private property, which goes against what socialism is...