Ideology of the Cold War: Capitalism vs Communism

[@TheColdWarTV]

Although the channel is now monetized, we are not getting full ads due to the nature of our content. Hence, we hope that you guys will consider supporting us via patreon www.patreon.com/thecoldwar

[@guyguy7634]

Wait why is the channel monetized?

[@marialuisalim6354]

Wasn't Stalin the general secretary not the premier?

[@BListHistory]

The ads that KZbin gives everyone have gone up in both frequency and annoyance lately. Ads in the middle of videos more often, sometimes 2 ads back to back. Please sell merch and shill crowd funding and do whatever you need to do to turn off ads on your videos for good. They are super distracting from the content, I absolutely hate them

[@dongochoangkhang]

i want you to do a video about resistance war agints france and america is my country of vietnam patriotic war

[@SOS-School_Of_Survival]

I'm very interested in seeing how you deal with the Bolsheviks and the genocides that they wrought across Ukraine etc. If you do a video on the Holomodor I will contribute significantly to you!

[@whiteeagleboneguard]

You know you grew up in an excommunist country when everybody wants to be an engineer

[@FlymanMS]

Kinda sad that we're lacking good engineers nowadays.

[@shrishchauhan3390]

The situation in India too is more or less the same, and engineers suffering from mass unemployment are forced to take up menial jobs

[@mysteriousdude280]

And a doctor

[@nondvcordvco4244]

and Kosmonavt :)

[@luisfernandosantosn]

Not sure if this is a joke or not

[@michaellewis1545]

The production value on this video is much better. I most applaud you for dealing with a history that many still see as politics.

[@kimobrien.]

The history of mankind since the dawn of civilization is the history of class struggle. Class struggle didn't end with the cold war and it certainly was not a victory for Democratic Imperialism. The heirs of Stalin brought back capitalism to the Soviet Union just as Trotsky said the would do without a new Party and political revolution. The Stalinist's were always incapable of reform and the Cuban revolution shows that the ideas of revolutionary Marxism are true with a living socialist revolution that is still making history in Cuba.

[@Mark-Wilson]

capitalism won! socialists cope!

[@Lucas-oe1uu]

Really like how you show the pros and cons of both ideologies without trying to convince anyone about which one is better

[@kimobrien.]

The struggle for socialism is first and foremost a struggle for ideas which is why the Stalinist's failed at building socialism. You can't move forward when you bring violence into the labor movement to settle disputes. Its not bad ideas that are a threat rather the threat comes form those who want to shut down all debate. You need to use ideas as weapons and than the elementary human right of self defense to build a revolutionary movement that can defeat the coming fascists bandits.

[@gottalivehappy]

Yea because otherwise the comment section would be set on fire

[@ardeleandan7]

Simply looking at the number of people trying to break the borders into communist or advanced capitalist countries clearly shows how many 'pros' communism has! Nobody wants to go to live into a communist country, simply because communism does not care about people and basic human nature/needs, so there is little development! The results of communism speak for themselves!

[@anng.4542]

If you want to see "which one is better", look up the word "holomodor", and read about it.

[@Starkillr1]

That’s what communists do, they make free markets look bad and make government control look good. It only works on poor idiots.

[@yusokrazee]

Seriously, how is this comment section so civil? I scrolled down expecting a trainwreck, and instead I got people acting like decent, well-mannered human beings. For god's sake, somebody throw a chair.

[@hadirahman3036]

@@truegrit1860 trump is lost man...

[@jusu8961]

because radicalised people dont look at neutral stuff like this

[@glenwicks4976]

@@truegrit1860 And you're proud that you're toxic?

[@bingwen469]

@@glenwicks4976 and you can't understand a joke

[@glenwicks4976]

@@bingwen469 How do YOU know it's a joke?

[@Nikita2209]

Well, as a Russian, i can say that the explanation is very clear, imtelligent and shows both advantages and disadvantages of these ideologies. Well done, thank you for the lack of stereotypes about communism.

[@kimobrien.]

I'm sure this is the way the leaders of both sides of the cold war would want it presented as some sort of gentlemanly affair. In reality I never liked living under the alternate flight path for the B-52 bombers armed with nuclear weapons. I also saw the real injustices of racism going on in the US 100 years after the civil war. The killing of four students at Kent state ruined my high school graduation. I had already been wondering why the communist manifesto hadn't been put in practice world wide. The lies and death caused by the unjust war against the people of Vietnam would lead me towards the communist movement except by this time the communist movement in the US had already fractured into multiple parties. Once I read Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed my thinking became much clear. The Militant paper of American Trotskyism since 1928 is still published here while the today the Communist Party USA has only a website and no party press.

[@Risenoph]

Stereotypes? The 100 million deaths were stere- *gets abruptly killed by a KGB agent*

[@deshaun9473]

All modern economies today have elements of free markets and state control. The only difference is: should the resources, wealth, and industries be in the hands of a select few, or should it belong to everyone? Everything else is commentary.

[@kantitsamystery6328]

Funny, or not so funny thing is, almost all the stereotypes used by the collective West to diminish the Soviet experiment were made as a response to something the West was doing to threaten the Soviet Union. The creation of blocs, the US created NATO to threaten the Soviets, so the Soviets created the Warsaw Pact, Stalin never wanted bloc competition, he wanted cooperation. Lack of freedom of movement; was imposed because the collective West used the destruction caused by WWII to entice the most educated and intelligent people in the Soviet sphere to come to the West. The massive defense spending by the Soviets was a reaction to a war machine in the US that never ended after WWII. One by one, starting with the time of Lenin, the Soviets had to react to attempts by the West to invade it, corrupt it from the inside, deminish its economic capacity, limit it's access to agricultural trade and starve it of resources. Imperialism at its worst. The imposition of ideological rigidity was a response to attempts by the West to infiltrate and divide the CCCP from within. Or even the rapid forced collectivization of agriculture was a response to attempts by the west to forcibly starve the Soviet bloc of agricultural trade. In every example, the West forced situations on the Soviets that required tough responses and unfortunate effects on its ability to govern in a way that allowed individual freedom. It wasn't a natural move towards authoritarianism, it was sadly the only direction they could go for the survival of their State. Then the West used that to point to the Soviet Union and claim they were an awful dictatorship that imposed authoritarianism on their own people while starving them and working them like slaves. They do the same thing now, but without a clear reason as to why. The why is still imperialism, but now it's without excuses for why it should exist.

[@Tektus]

Let’s just hope the comments section is just as civil as the guy in the video.

[@ShamanMcLamie]

LoL! That was a good joke.

[@MrBigCookieCrumble]

It seems to be quite well mannered at the moment, hope it stays that way haha! xD

[@yusokrazee]

YOU CAN TAKE YOUR CIVILITY AND have some more. That sounds lovely. Cheers.

[@SOS-School_Of_Survival]

Or we could just give all communists a free helicopter ride, Pinochet style

[@abrahamwilberforce9824]

I think they are, when you making a political video without strawmanning, scapegoating and blaming people actually discuss nicely (most of the time).

[@travisoliver6741]

*"Our words are backed by nuclear weapons"* - -Gandhi- _The USSR and USA_

[@nsms1297]

You are from which country. How do you know about Gandhi. Are you British

[@ruannel2879]

Lol

[@hidof9598]

@@nsms1297 , Gandhi is really popular even in other countries

[@dickdudd9416]

Civ.

[@willnash7907]

As it turns out, the US were pretty authoritarian and the USSR pretty elitist and they both were a lot more similar than they would like to let on...

[@tentacledood5784]

2 sides of the same coin, as people say.

[@Matt-en4yg]

Well, this is a great darn channel to teach me about an era of history that I'm not quite familiar with. Great job Kings and Generals, keep up the great work!

[@emiljohansson2698]

As a swede, when I see Charles I up vote

[@emilchen9866]

Yes

[@sjewitt22]

Is the kinds and generals? I thought it was the great war guys.

[@buddermonger2000]

@@sjewitt22 You wouldn't be at fault by the naming convention, but no it is Kings and Generals

[@thabomuso6254]

This youtube channel is especially important for anyone born after 1989, when the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Cold war quickly ended. Particularly since seemingly most kinds these days leave school without even rudimentary knowledge in even modern history. The video is a bit oversimplistic in its content for my taste, but it provides a background on which to build further knowledge. The setup of the video is very good though.

[@thabomuso6254]

@Anthony Simmons your description of me as a "snob" within this context is largely correct. I admit that, while I still stand for my opinions about this video. My main point is that the very basics of the Cold War should not even need to be explained, as they should be properly taught in schools, but they aren't. I am not really complaining about this channel, because it is great. I am complaining about the fact that the producers of the videos have to be so delicate and basic in their explanations.

[@jonnyohiggins6969]

@@thabomuso6254 Kudos for taking criticism as just that, and not a personal attack. In my opinion, your "complaint" is unfair. In the day and age of short attention spans, short form history videos are just gonna be the standard. I'll take "basic" history over none. Longer form videos are out there for the dedicated audience.

[@thabomuso6254]

@@jonnyohiggins6969 " In the day and age of short attention spans, short form history videos are just gonna be the standard. I'll take "basic" history over none." This is kind off my point. Today with a wealth of information unimaginable to us who came into adulthood when the Internet entered the scene, I think that we are living in a world where there is a standard of low expectations. I have taught history using lectures to give a broader picture and to analyze information, while I mostly gave my students youtube videos to get all of the details. One media doesn't exclude another one. But students will never learn properly by teaching things fast enough for their taste. Patience is a skill that is essential for learning. And the less education kids are given, the less education they are generally going to expect. It becomes a negative circle.

[@bentonhenderson382]

Y'all are amazing the succinct citations and simplicity here is perfect for a classroom social studies lesson plan! keep em coming!

[@filmfan885]

Great video! I really like the change you made by adding more images, videos, stock footage, graphs, etc. This makes the video so much better!

[@TheColdWarTV]

It will get only better.

[@StepBackHistory]

I must say the writing in this video is nothing short of unmitigated genius

[@TheColdWarTV]

As intended. :-)

[@guyguy7634]

Hey step back! Are you possibly gonna try and get involved with the channel? Maybe provide some insight?

[@StepBackHistory]

@@guyguy7634 Check the credits

[@phasestar7787]

Are you telling me the writer on this episode is also the guy who did this? kzbin.info/www/bejne/i17Tl2yuZ7WbsKM. If so, it’s pretty clear this channel’s pretense at “balance” is compromised from the start.

[@McCbobbish]

Phase Star The green new deal isn’t communism.

[@robertorojnic4370]

Absolutely love this channel! Keep it up. Kudos!

[@memelord1337]

After seeing how most Westerners depict the dichotomy of Capitalism/Socialism, I was dreading watching these videos, thinking they would just be muddled in silly politics. Although there were a few oversimplifications or generalizations here and there (understandable for such a short video), I was pleasantly surprised. I look forward to the rest of the series, keep it up!

[@MattBiden]

Well considering it was the west who created socialism and has had more socialist states than any other civilization on earth. Have you ever thought that its the west whos right about socialism being a failed theory and you being wrong?

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@MattBiden good point.

[@sundalongpatpat]

"Two entirely irreconcilable ideas." China: hold my tea...

[@ReidMerrill]

Socialism with capitalist characteristics

[@MwaelG]

It's starting everyone! bring your popcorn

[@katel1272]

and gas masks...

[@ghostdog688]

Just wanted to thank you for attempting to remain balanced in your presentation of both ideologies.

[@MrSerpX]

One of the most balanced Channel I have ever seen in KZbin. If the creators were firm believers of Capitalism, they would just demonize the communists and vice versa. But you have tried to do it in very balanced way. I think this is what historians should do. Hats Off.

[@TheColdWarTV]

History is about facts.

[@dheosilalahi7241]

Sorry to say but the facts what the Soviet Union and their "empire" did wasn't communism. that was Stalinism, the carricature of it #trotskyist

[@phirus02]

@@dheosilalahi7241 they were still calling themselves communists. So ideology and university debates aside, if you define the way they were communist and why they were considering themeselves communist it's very okay to call them communists i think. It's not because they are not what you/we want marxism/communism to be or what it was supposed to be by the book, that it's not communism, it's still very much inspired by Marx, or claim to be. Communism if we understand no state, moneyless society, fully equalitarian (may be wrong, not on point with theory) never has been tried, but such has capitalism in it's purest form. We should acknowledge that all countries have some form of mixed economies, none is fully capitalist or fully communist, even Cuba or the USA.

[@dheosilalahi7241]

@@phirus02 What do you think is the true definition of capitalism? Because Marx criticized the supporters of capitalism which, while creating "healthy" competition, actually sacrificed the working people and the natural environment. He draws a clear line of class struggle, in which the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have completely different interests on a micro basis. The bourgeois class wants to use the proletarian class to be exploited to produce coffers of wealth, while the proletarian class that is close to the means of production at least wants to live a decent life, when it reaches class consciousness collectively, not class consciousness individually, then they have the right to declare their right to power for the welfare of their people. which gradually created a communist society. Meanwhile, those who are pro-capitalism say that this system is better than the feudal system. It sounds like, it's not even like anymore, it was Adam Smith who said it, but he never mentions a single word "capitalism" in his writings or books (At this point I want to ask, do you really think so?) He only said it was a free market, which in later years Karl Marx found the system to be a capitalist system

[@sjewitt22]

@@dheosilalahi7241 This video was about American capitalism vs Soviet communism. It's trues a lot of communists weren't fans of Stalin.

[@SaladBowlz]

I was a little worried when I saw the title of this video, but you did a very good job discussing the two opposing philosophies, right down to the language you use to talk about it. Great job on a difficult task.

[@a.e.m.1452]

From a syndicalist and communist, I really have to applaud your attempts at objectivity and neutrality while keeping it simple.👍 Especially the point about segregation and apartheid, a lot of people in the U.S. forget about the fact that we still had a large portion of the population both under essentially police control and excluded from our "democratic" institutions at the time, who's suffrage was only achieved through the actions of American socialists and communists such as MLK and Malcolm X, and Fred Hampton. If I have any criticism to make it would be the lack of the term Marxist-Leninist and Marxism-Leninism as a specific label for the U.S.S.R's ideological positions, as many communists from Trotskyites, to Anarchists, to Syndicalists, to Orthodox Marxists, have views that differ almost to the point of juxdaposition with the Soviets, while still being under the umbrella of "communism". It would also help to clarify more as you used the specific and more accurate term "liberalism" to refer to the U.S. under Truman, without giving a specific Soviet counterpart. Good work! Look forward to more. 😁

[@a.e.m.1452]

@Danijel Mornarić That's a loaded question, care to clarify?

[@a.e.m.1452]

@Danijel Mornarić I support workers' self-management and democracy and representation in the workplace. I support people receiving value based on what the produce and contribute, not whether they happen to hold a factory or resource that entitles them to dictate how (and with what standard of living) their workers live their lives. The value that the labor of a worker produces with their limited time alive, should belong to them, and therefore when working in organized labor such contributions should entitle them to democratic organizational representation in the group and control over their working lives. I support escaping capitalism's inevitable cycles of spiraling decline and internal implosion, which lead to massive bouts of unemployement, starvation, poverty, death, and conditions ripe for fascist dictatorships, such as the Nazi regime, which as a Jew and a human I have an upmost responsibility to prevent. I support the limiting of the institutions of the police, military, state, and political structures which are constructed out of rigid and inhuman hiearchies, encouraging alienation and the most dangerously brutal conformism. These institutions should and must likewise be democratized and horizontalized in their structure. In short, I support the application of libertarian rights (in the classical French anarchist sense, not American "libertarainism") to not just the social or political sphere, but also to the economic, and the only way that can be achieved is through the abolition of private (not personal, this equivocation is often made, but there is a distinction) property and the state structures that uphold it. The personal ideological mixology that I possess is most closely defined as Anarcho-Syndicalism, although I am also fundamentally influenced in my analysis by the Orthodox Marxism of Marx and Luxemburg, as well as Kropotkonite Anarcho-Communism/ Libertarian Socialism. libcom.org/thought/anarcho-syndicalism-an-introduction en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Marxism libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction If rather than turning us this into some rambling and convoluted debate in the KZbin Comments (which I think we all know never helps anyone) you would like to read about my views and deciern their validity for yourself, here are some good works to start with: "Wage Labour and Capital" - Karl Marx "Reform or Revolution" (Sometimes called "Social Reform or Revolution") - Rosa Luxemburg "The Conquest of Bread" - Pytor Kropotkin "Why Socialism?" - Albert Einstien "The Capitalist System" - Mikhail Bakunin (If you made it to the bottom, good job 😄, I barely did.)

[@jaylefer4285]

There's nothing more disgusting than seeing a Communist in the comment section.

[@a.e.m.1452]

@@jaylefer4285 love you too, man with Nazi marching songs listed on his KZbin profile

[@aneesh2115]

@@a.e.m.1452 apply cold water to burned area

[@keishaloves1762]

All day I was looking for an explanation that had the right pace and went in depth. This is the only video I found.

[@lukazohar6159]

Would be nice if there would be more footage and less talking to the camera.

[@DzinkyDzink]

This.

[@mikeritter2979]

😢😢😢

[@victorcabanelas]

Great series! I'll say it again, though: The problem's not ideologies, it's totalitarian governments and politicians.

[@TheColdWarTV]

Thank you for watching ;)

[@victorcabanelas]

@@TheColdWarTVThank you and everyone involved for making these! I'm still catching up but, again, great series! Out of curiosity, are you planning to include South America in these? And keep up the great work! :)

[@Brillmongot]

The problem is totalitarian ideology.

[@grandadmiralthrawn3164]

@anatoli p communism can but due to the immense power that is placed in the hands of a single person it is very easy for that person to become corrupt. And yes communism will never work and is not something good, however market socialism keeps the good parts of Marxism such as equality and rights being the same as human needs while also having libery and allowing people who work hard to earn more. But the economy is still reglugated and the state can go in and protect the workers if capitalism goes rampant.

[@superduperfreakyDj]

@anatoli p It can, but capitalism leads to dictatorship too. Dictatorship of the monopoly.

[@l.jboylan6704]

this is very VERY fair-minded on questioning both sides. well done.

[@martinsgakke]

And here we are, 40 years after the end of the Cold War, trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Providing justice, security, health, shelter, food, education, freedom and pursuit of happiness for all. "Not because it's easy but because it's hard". Because the only possible future for mankind to survive and thrive is for "science" and "engineering" to cooperate against obscurantists.

[@carlospesqueraalonso4988]

You should improve the speech: there is a lot of echo and it sounds quite monotonous and slow.

[@delta1404]

Definitely needs more graphics and pictures as well. I feel they're inspired by the Great War Channel and they really should take more notes from them.

[@carlospesqueraalonso4988]

@@delta1404 exactamente eso. El presentador le daba emoción, que es algo que aquí no pasa.

[@michaellewis1545]

@@delta1404 The great War started the same way. They only improve once they started to get big.

[@kairatruslanuly9663]

Just speed up the video. Works perfectly 😅

[@Deathskull0001]

The speaker should speak with more confidence as well. It's way too slow/soft. Doesn't sound good.

[@MojoBonzo]

1. watched the video 2. peed 3. made a nice iced coffee 4. rolled 3 cigarettes 5. now im ready to read the comments

[@dragonsword7370]

Dude you sound like a friend of mine.

[@TheCojack666]

Thank you for making this channel, my knowledge on the cold war from the Soviet side is lacking and it is wonderful to get detailed info like this from both sides. Thank you very much!!!

[@TheColdWarTV]

Thank you for watching.

[@kimobrien.]

@@TheColdWarTV I'm sure this how the leaders of each side would agree to have it presented but it is not that simple. In America you had the Witch hunt of the Stalinist's shortly after the end of the second world war and passage of all kinds of anticommunist laws. Although supposedly directed against Stalinism it wasn't long before Jimmy Kutcher a WW2 legless Veteran and life long Trotskyist was fired from his job at the VA. A long struggle insued and Jimmy won back his job and full pay. You see the capitalist were really hoping to tame the labor movement and it made no difference what you thought about Stalin.

[@ilovejesus999ify]

I would just point out that when Marx said ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ he didn’t actually mean a DICTATORship, he just meant that power was in the hands of everyone in the proletariat, so each would have according to their abilities to each according to their needs. Marx hoped for a stateless society in the long run. Lenin and the rest of the soviet leadership took this idea and misunderstood it as an *actual* dictatorship, which Stalin then put to the logical extreme.

[@miguelbayonrivera2467]

Thank you for this. That's what I always try to explain people about this concept.

[@aroundhere1200]

Well done keep going.

[@dtsiron]

Thanks for the documentaries. You can still add more videos, maps and photos. Don't listen to those who ask for increase in speech speed. There are many people who don't speak English fluently or English is not their native language. So, they need some time to comprehend the speech. If people need to hear the speech faster they should choose 1.25 at playing speed.

[@TheColdWarTV]

Agreed.

[@gzpo]

So, economies do not live in a vacuum, or, in isolation; I'm sure we'd all agree. Can you address the inter-relationship of the cold war economies?

[@ShamanMcLamie]

The Soviets relied on trade with and technology from Western Captialist societies. One observation by the Economist Ludwig von Mises about the USSR and why it didn't collapse right away is that it was an "Island of Communism in a sea of Capitalism." By the 80's the Soviet Union was heavily dependent on American grain bought with money borrowed from Western Europe. It's why the Soviets abandoned the Eastern block. Clamping down on the Eastern Block would have lead to sanctions compromising foreign financing from the West and prevented them from importing needed goods from the West.

[@giansideros]

@@ShamanMcLamie that's hardly true, the US coerced it's allies to go along with a technology embargo on the Soviet Union which deprived it of many labour saving innovations and productivity multipliers. Not to mention this went as far as denying the sale and/licencing of drugs and vaccines to the soviets too. Nothing was traded that would increase soviet self sufficiency, hence why grain was acceptable as it could be used as a bargaining chip which it was in the event of US imposing its hegemony: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022009405049270

[@ShamanMcLamie]

@@giansideros How do you enforce a technology embargo, especially within a free country like the US? Most of these labor saving technologies would have been public knowledge and it wouldn't have been difficult for the Soviets to study and develop these technologies themselves if they had the capacity to do so. The Soviets built their own Space Shuttle and everyone is pretty certain they just copied the US Shuttle blueprints which were openly available to the public. The biggest inhibition to the Soviet Union wasn't the West, but the inherent flaws of its founding ideology, Communism. All the excuses about how the Capitalist countries had all these advantages don't exactly excuse Communism which if it was superior should have compensated for these disadvantages. Instead the Soviet Union from its inception was dependent on utilizing technology and innovations pioneered in Capitalist countries. Throughout much of it's history it increasingly fell behind Western counterparts becoming increasingly dependent on them until the whole thing came crashing down. This was do to massive corruption and inefficiencies in the Soviet Union and the Knowledge and Calculation problems inherent to Central Planning.

[@sneed2856]

​@@ShamanMcLamie It was not just a technology embargo, it was also a forced diversion of intellectual capital towards unproductive activities (military ind. complex) caused by the reigniting of the arms race by the Reagan administration in the 1980s. The notion that the Eastern Bloc was somehow incapable of producing genuine technological innovations is contradicted by the numerous developments in military technology, aeronautics (sputnik), and in an attempt by Victor Glushkov to create OGAS - a digital system that would have resembled the internet. In respect to the Soviet economy, to compare a country starting from an agricultural background to a country (US) that had already industrialized is extremely unfair, not to mention the enormous amount of devastation that occurred as a result of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, the subsequent loss of life, and the destruction of infrastructure and other means of production. Despite being behind and having embargos placed upon the country, the Soviet Union had managed to create an enormous industrial base during the 1930s in time for the Nazi invasion, and also managed to recover from the destruction of WWII in less than 10. Lastly, in regards to the Economic Calculation Problem, at this point in time where information technology is so advanced, even under a neoclassical perspective would a centrally-planned economy be feasible. Paul Cockshott (I know his name is stupid, bear with me) has written several books on the subject and has created his own theoretical system of economic planning. The Economic Calculation problem is not taken seriously from the Marxian perspective, since scarcity will manifest itself through the socially-necessary labor required for a commodity's production, and hence market prices are not necessary for capital goods allocation. Also, the notion that capitalism is more efficient is flawed when one views efficiency strictly through the lens of profit maximization. Many labor-inefficient methods of production (sweatshop labor) are utilized because of the lower standard of living and the consequent lower value of labor-power (costs are smaller), strictly for the purpose of maximizing profit, when more labor efficient methods could be used that save human sweat. see also: archive.org/details/ABCPlanning archive.org/details/InPlaceOfProfit/page/n2 www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1986/09/planning.html www.itif.org/files/Where_do_innovations_come_from.pdf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_inventions www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=125&t=54420 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Glushkov

[@ShamanMcLamie]

@@sneed2856 A country coming from behind economically and technologically can catch up. We've seen this happen numerous times in the last century and a half particularly in Asia. Japan, Korea, China to name a few. Just because the USSR started to Industrialize about 50 years after the US and suffered heavily during a World War they should have been able to catch up economically within a 30 to 50 years. If Communism was superior the Soviet Economy should have continued to grow to support it's military budget and meet civilian needs as seen in the United States. Despite huge arms build up the average Americans standard of living dramatically increased in the 1980's and the Soviet Standard of living instead declined. The Soviet Economic growth slows over time and then stagnates and declines. The main reason the USSR was even able to Industrialize in the first place is that it had access to Industrial Technology and practices developed in the West. As the Soviet Economy grew it became more settled and because you didn't have market forces reorganizing the economy the Soviet Economy couldn't change and adapt. It became very rigid and lacked economic dynanism. Guaranteed jobs prevent, or at least slow reallocation of labor to other sectors of the economy that need it more. Soviet economic planning was a matter of political consideration and not economic. I never said the Eastern Block never invented anything, but compared to the West the Eastern block was severely lacking compared to the West where the bulk of invention and innovation has taken place in the last century. I don't have time to read an entire book so you're going to need to explain to me how Paul Cockshott solves the Economic Calculation problem. Computers can't solve the Calculation problem because you need to obtain the needed information instantly process it yesterday, figure out what it means last month and then act on it a year ago. A big part of economic calculations and planning is accounting for expected, or speculated changes in the economy yet to happen. This is something only an entrepreneur can do seriously since they're putting their own capital on the line. They have incentives to get this right. A computer has no will of it's own and the central planners will never have the same incentives to ensure that resources today are allocated in a way that provides efficiency going forward. I don't doubt at all the Marxists wouldn't take a problem that debunks their entire religion seriously. Labor Theory of Value has been roundly debunked for over a century now. Socially Necessary Labor is an ill defined term. Who, or what decides what is Socially Necessary? Socially Necessary usually just ends up being Supply and Demand. You forget that labor has to go into providing those labor efficient methods especially if it is Capital. A machine doesn't just come out of thin air. People first have to invent and e-sign those machines. Labor to produce the raw materials and process them into parts and then labor must be expended to put it all together to create those labor saving machines. The materials that went into those labor saving machines could be used elsewhere. For example a lot of homes in Montana are made from prefabricated parts in New Jersey, shipped to Montana and then assembled quickly. This is do to the lack of laborers in Montana. Even if Capitalism isn't always being efficient which will always be the case with anything that has flawed humans involved. That doesn't make Communism a superior economic system, or even a valid one at that. It's like a Creationist arguing against Evolution. You can certainly try to poke all the holes you want, but it doesn't build the case for what you're proposing as an alternative.

[@guyguy7634]

Since your are on the topic of economics, can you talk about how these economic notions of of capitalism and communism change based upon change in their leaderships? Also could also look at countries trying to offer different solutions like third way economics? Or the development of state capitalism?

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

oh yeah, I want to learn more about South Korean state capitalism!

[@guyguy7634]

Danijel Mornarić well you can have an economic system where there is no government control, but have owned by the people who do the work, like a market socialist economy.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

@Danijel Mornarić "Because business owners do the most work and the hardest work typically if they are too succeed. But always take on the most risk, it’s their credit, loans, investment, reputation and livelihood in the line of it fails." yeah sure. Bezos is the most hard working individual person on this planet, he deserves so much many as tens of millions of people have together because he works as much as tens of millions of people combined. In 24 hours, he simply works 10,000,000*8h thats why he is the richest man on earth, totally owned, nothing is stolen haha long live capitalism the true meritocracy

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

@Bruno Pereira So what? In what way does cheaper stuff justify exploitation? In what way does cheaper stuff justify that one person extracts to much value from thousands of workers, that he becomes the richest man on earth? In what way was Bezos as a person necessary to make the books cheaper? there is no need for a capitalist to create a business, a worker controlled economy can do the same without making thousands of people poorer and one person richer

[@ihl0700677525]

"State capitalism" is the worst of them all. People are worried that some corporations accumulated too much wealth and power that they can influence/control the government. Yet here we have "state capitalism", where the government and corporations is actually single entity. So too communism, the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" is very similar to "state capitalism" in practice, but with much worse efficiency since it has to maintain a vestige of popular support instead of focusing on the service/product for customer satisfaction. Having to choose either state capitalism or communism, I'd choose communism. I'd rather live in stagnation and slow decline than being violated by the state.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

Since I asked you to make at least one video about the different ideologies I think it is fair if I judge this video and give some comment. First off - overall this video is not bad. The inacurracies are small and it's almost nitpicking what I am doing later on. But I think it is very, very important to do this. When talking about the Cold War, we will encounter so much propaganda from all sides. It's terrible and the only way to explore things is when the basic terminology is explained. I really hope you can keep on doing neutral content. So far you exceeded my expectations...but we will see - Korea is coming up, isn't it? ;) 2:45 "The Soviets planned *every* function of the economy through the government". Ideally this was the plan, but in reality it was not possible until the mid-80s to plan out a whole economy in detail. There simply wasn't enough calculation power for that much information at that time. And once there was, the Soviets have already gone back to reintroducing markets. So the planned economy of the Soviet Union actually was not that centralised as possible. The main focus was heavy industry and that was the sector in which the planners invested most calculation time - well, we know the success of planned sectors - they worked much better than sectors with less planning. Sadly the production of consumer good wasn't in the focus of the Soviet planners. For most sectors of the economy, only some plan targets were set. But these were not some detailed plan and the enterprises had to meet the targets in monetary terms, which does not work very well in a planned economy. If someone is interested in the whole topic of planned economies and socialism, Dr. Paul Cockshott (a leading expert on this topic) has a KZbin channel and I recommend the video called "going beyond money" for the insight in the reasoning of Soviet planning. 3:03 Indeed, centralised planning happened many times to achieve great goals. In the US during the second world war, f.e.. Even NASA used centralised planning for their task to get people on the moon. I know you didn't say that, but some people still think it so I will point it out again: A planned economy does not imply socialism and vice versa. 3:10 As a communist I agree with that in part. If there would be more democratic decision making in the workplace itself and/or direct democracy to determine the direction the economy should develop, that would be much more in line with socialism. 4:40 Yeah, thats not what dictatorship of the Proletariat means. The DotP is just a transition period in which all property of the means of production, distribution and exchanged are collectivized and shared for the whole population. After that is done, no more private property of the means of production, distribution and exchange exists, i.e. no more capitalists - i.e. classes are abolished since the proletariat also ceases to be the proletariat (since it now owns the means of production, which contradicts the definition of proletariat). Hence, the DotP is just a transition period which abolishes itself. The problem with the Soviet System was that the DotP was associated with the rule of the Communist Party. That is simply wrong. I blame Lenin, he came up with that idea of the Vanguard party. 7:18 "Communist countries" - Here again. I know the media uses it all the time. But you literally explained in this video that the economy of the USSR was socialist, not communist. When we talk about socialist and capitalist countries, we mean distinguish them through their economic system, not the ruling ideology. Otherwise, there would be not one capitalist block and one socialist block, but dozens of liberalist countries, half a dozen of fascist countries, two dozens of social democratic countries, some socialist countries and some other more fringe ideologies. Only if we distinguish between economic systems, we can divide the world in two (or three) blocks and thus look at the Cold War. So again, please say "Socialist countries" for the countries that fit the definition you gave at the beginning of the video. 9:50 I seriously don't know where that comes from. There were no rich people in the USSR, not even the politicians. The inequality of wages is somethign I don't want to defend, as I don't want to defend the Communist party of the USSR, but it doesn't seem like a fair argument to make if the wage differentials in the USSR were always much much lower than in any capitalist country.

[@ksotar]

About p.1. I read that Walmart long ago have more intricate economic model than the whole USSR. But copes it well because of computer and network power available.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

@@ksotar that would be interesting to read, do you still have the link to the source?

[@ksotar]

@@LibertarianLeninistRants unfortunately couldn't find the exact paper I read, but instead I found a latest book that describes all the same: books.google.ru/books?id=_IFDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=walmart+ussr+comparison&source=bl&ots=Rq8VmJnXhG&sig=ACfU3U1UI4jrSues_MyWuuNQn4Ka8mG4Ww&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVueGJ8a_hAhWMxIsKHbULAkMQ6AEwB3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=walmart%20ussr%20comparison&f=false

[@ksotar]

@@LibertarianLeninistRants you may also find this article interesting, as well as the documentary mentioned in it: mempko.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/big-data-and-the-soviet-ghosts/

[@NHHwng]

@Libertarian_Leninist_Rants Thank you for this added content on this video. Since you seem to be a self identified communist, I am curious to hear your take on the role/necessity of conflict in Marxism. Can an ideal peaceful society be brought through the means of conflict?

[@alexanderchenf1]

This video made me suddenly understand the system of my old country China - fundamentally the same to the Soviet Union - materialistic, self-proclaimed practical, amoral.

[@mysigt_]

Considering the fact that Kings and Generals hang out on Peter Coffin’s channel, this video was surprisingly balanced. Well done.

[@tylerjerabek5204]

@@RR-cl2vf key word decent, not great

[@everettsalmans104]

I wish I could find the images you used in the thumbnail.

[@ComedyJakob]

My general feeling in this video is that it was geared less toward the stated goal of objectivity and more towards the goal of trying to inject nuance into the opinions of someone who may have a completely pro USA point of view with zero previous thought given towards the USSR being populated by human beings. I think that was detrimental to the general audience who was looking for something more along the lines of the stated goal.

[@Crimethoughtfull]

Being objective and injecting nuance are not necessarily incompatible, for reality usually is nuanced. It looked to me like it was giving pros-and-cons for both systems, or at least highlighting the commonly held pros-and-cons. What do you feel was missed?

[@phirus02]

that feel like a very good video, pointing out both the good and bad sides of the two nations and their systems. Really good ^^

[@daemon.running]

One key point I have heard that wasn't mentioned, is of the inherent inefficiency of any centrally planned and managed economy compared to the extremely granular self management nature of a individualist focused economy.

[@enterchannelname5953]

According to the FBI: Soviet citizens and US citizens had very similar live with the exception of Soviet citizens having better access to good quality food.

[@rederickfroders1978]

Well done! Holding true to core values and an unbaissed balance between the two sides!

[@ajjeehh]

As a leftist, this is a great rundown on the flaws of early applied communism. I didn't have a single issue with what you said, which surprised me. It's worth noting how hypocritical the Russian (and Chinese for that matter) application of Communism are to it's original goals of total equality, and as a leftist I obviously feel that these flaws can be learned from and fixed in order to perfect the system. On the other hand, its interesting to note that while liberalism has equality as its main tenet, even in a pure liberal/capitalist system (which the US is fairly close to) equality in class will never be achieved. The complete privatisation of services will do nothing but halt social movement, and the claims of efficiency, or a reduction in price, never consider the vast increases in cost at the backend. There are genuinely good examples demonstrating the potential of socialism (i.e. Catalonia in 1936), but none in which liberal capitalism fully frees everyone. I've personally come to the conclusion that the US and the USSR were just as bad morally as each other. Thanks for the video, it was a great insigth.

[@sako5751]

I personally think that Capitalism with a strong social state is pretty much the ideal system. There needs to be a free market and competition, but a lot of things simply aren't profitable for free market capitalists, like providing cheap healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. In those areas, the state needs to fund projects that help the society and the citizens, like public hospitals, schools, etc. Every person, regardless of wether they have a job or not, should also be able to rely on the state to ensure housing, food/water and healthcare in times of need. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark or Germany prove, that its possible to maintain a functional and strong economy while caring for its citizens, so that no one should starve, suffer or live like a slave because of their economic situation.

[@robertoazuaje9279]

I feel like that Matthew Witherspoon guy should be on some kind of watchlist. Just saying.

[@StepBackHistory]

Obviously the author of this video is a genius

[@ajjeehh]

@@thelakeman2538 Nah im confusing regular ol liberalism with neoliberalism, but at this point theyre the same thing. We aren't gonna go back to liberalism, neolibs are here to stay. Look at what essential services, maybe not in the US but elsewhere in the world, have been privatised under neoliberal control

[@MrBigCookieCrumble]

Very well put together. Great job.

[@TheColdWarTV]

Thank you for watching.

[@QuantumBraced]

You know you had the superior system when you had to build a dual-layer wall with a massive no-man's land filled with traps, watch towers and guards authorized to kill trespassers to keep your people from desperately trying to flee, and many still tried. That's a really good sign.

[@ardeleandan7]

Bingo! I do not know how people tell there are 'pros' at the communist/socialist regimes when they had to forcedly keep the people to not going to capitalist countries!

[@greg_lrgg]

Excellent video. Good mixture of footage and speech. I hope that you guys will keep talking about ideologies in incoming videos as you said. Also I fully disagree with comments saying "host is too slow, host does not fit the job". He is doing a really good job. Perfect English, fluent and no hesitations, while spoken at a speed that allows non native English speakers to follow up. Also don't listen to comments saying "it's a bit flat". I mean that's how it is supposed to be. Tone plays a great deal in equalizing views, so with this approach of yours, neither do you emphasize on or discredit any ideologies. Put it more simply it is not a show, but history. If they want suspense and drama there are plenty of videos like those on YT.

[@deshaun9473]

I've watched this two years ago and am rewatching this now. My thoughts: Socialism has been practiced, in various forms, for millennia. It was practiced by the hunter gatherers, ancient Sumer, Mesopotamia, ancient Israel, Ptolemaic Egypt, and numerous other civilizations throughout Human history, which isn't actually surprising, because we are, after 'social beings.' Even today, all modern economies have elements of both free markets AND state control. The only real difference between socialism and capitalism depends on this question: should the resources, wealth, and the industries of the nation be in the hands of the select few, or should it be in the hands of everyone? My firm belief is the latter. Everything else is commentary. ❤

[@BoJack_HorseFly85]

Just became a member. What an excellent channel!

[@scottkrater2131]

Gotta hand it to the Cuban people, despite 70 years of a salt filled air, they kept those American made cars running and looking great. When American cars in a similar environment were eaten into rusted junk in a lot less time.

[@heberpelagio7161]

The success of Stalin - the man who used to boast that he conquered the United States "from the plow to the atomic bomb in just a generation" - compared to Gorbachev's failure shows that a socialist economy is unable to function with a minimum of efficiency without requiring a massive dose of political violence. In an attempt to reform a decadent regime, Gorbachev moved faster with the process of economic opening in the hope of removing the predictable resistance that the Soviet bureaucracy would create to economic reform measures, as thorough proof with the failed attempt. coup d'état in August 1991 - which ended up precipitating the final crisis of socialism and the dissolution of the USSR itself Its Chinese parallel - Deng Xiaoping - adopted a logic diametrically opposed to that of Gorbachev: it prioritized the achievement of economic prosperity (adopting in practice capitalism) precisely to delay any attempt at political opening, as was evident with the acceleration of the economy. reforms after the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is important to note that it was Karl Marx himself who, in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, discerned the scenario in which the conditions for a social revolution process are formed, describing it as follows: “At a certain stage in its development, the material productive forces of society contradict existing production relations or - which is only their legal expression - with the property relations in which they have been active until then. From the forms of development of the productive forces, these relations are transformed into fetters of them. So, it is a time of social revolution. '* By rejecting the pursuit of profit maximization as an instrument to stimulate innovation, socialist countries ended up condemning themselves to obsolescence. Thus, they lost the chance to incorporate the productivity gains made possible by technological progress. That is why the capitalist countries managed to provide a greater rise in the standard of living of their population, even without pursuing the egalitarian ideal. Therefore, until the “final crisis of socialism” (to paraphrase K. Marx's own definitions once again), it was only a matter of time. But religious fanatics do not give up on their faith, even against the indisputable proof of the facts, which completely refute it! * Reproduced according to MARX, K. Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, organized by Florestan Fernandes and published under the title K. Marx: Theory and historical process of the social revolution, In Marx & Engels, Great Social Scientists Collection, History, vol. 36. São Paulo: Ática, 1983. p. 232. Commemorative edition of the centenary of Karl Marx's death

[@DmoneyS44]

Very informative and well balanced. Great video!

[@Zadrigo]

Great video, but I am rather sorry you didn't mention things that USSR brought to life that changed the fate of the normal people throughout the world. Like working hours, pensions, healthcare, women's education and women in workforce, massive electrification, all those things were introduced, dramatically raised standards of living in extremely poor and war-thorn Russia, and became so popular in the west that they had to adopt at least some of these things in order to keep the population happy. Before USSR seeing a doctor was a luxury everywhere in the world, but with their massive education system that produced a huge number of doctors, engineers and teachers, they completely changed the way we deliver knowledge, healthcare and technological achievements to the population. Not to mention the ideological fight to liberate the colonies - at the time of the creation of USSR, most of the world was a colony of 3-4 european powers. It was a world so different than it is today. I think that all modern humans should at least say "thank you, guys" while standing up in respect when speaking about USSR and its achievements before returning to the ideological hideouts of their own.

[@lieutenantbears]

Its amazing what can be achieved when you place a gun to everyone’s head, and tell them what to do. Also, the USSR basically colonized Eastern Europe and suppressed the populations. My dad visited Warsaw in the 80’s for a special college business trip and what the Polish told him was amazing. They praised soviet leadership and the amazing things the Russians did, actually in a very similar manner as you. They press my dad (one of only a couple Americans on the trip) to tell his government to lift sanctions and trade technology with Poland. Then the Soviet Party Commissar would leave the room and then the truth came out. Everything they just said was a lie and that the Soviets were holding a gun to every country’s head. They spoke of the inefficiencies in centralized planning and all the corruption. They said the famous Peking Duck restaurant in the city only serves coke and coffee cake. When off of work they all waited in line for one ice cream cart because that was the only thing to do. They joked that the best view in the city was from the Warsaw radio town, because that was the only place you didn’t have to look at that ugly symbol of soviet oppression. The soviets changed the fate for normal people alright.

[@Zadrigo]

​@@lieutenantbears Eastern Europe at time was basically a bunch of Nazi puppet countries allied with Germany. They invaded USSR together. Armies of Romania and Hungary, for example, didn't perish defending their homeland from Red Army, but at Stalingrad, 3000 km to the east, and they got there pillaging, burning, killing and rapin in their way. All those nations should count themselves lucky they didnt get mass deportation to Siberia as an act of revenge for 25 million dead in USSR, which was quite within the capability of USSR. Instead all they do is cry and whine about bad Russians. Those countries shouldnt have even been allowed to exist. Russians should really learn a thing or two from the west.

[@TheR00k]

@@lieutenantbears I would like to remind you that everything was always done for the benefit of your own country. The Poles were exterminating Ukrainians during the time of a Polish-Lithuanian union, and no one bats an eye. Also, right after the October revolution Russia was invaded on multiple fronts, and it surely could happen again at every moment, cue Operation Unthinkable - Brits arming the Germans and sending them to fight the USSR, should it not behave. No country was ever better in dealing with other countries than another country. You can pull a Switzerland and stay out, but that also means that you support colonialism by not helping Africans get their freedom back, for example. There is no "doing ho harm" in politics. Someone will suffer, you just get to choose who and "better us than them" mentality always applies.

[@EU4_Enjoyer]

God damn the host(sorry I don’t know his name) is just so civil. Subbed for sure and looking forward to more videos.

[@justinian-the-great]

Will you guys cover Tito-Stalin split and Yugoslavia as it was one of the main initiators of unaligned movement and was only country considered as friendly both to the West and East?

[@TheColdWarTV]

Yes

[@justinian-the-great]

@@TheColdWarTV Good! I'mm very excited for the next videos! 😉

[@chomikus04]

Watching this material I can not get rid of the impression that the actions of the USSR are presented in neutral, not objective, light. We must remember that the ideology of Russian communism was stained with blood. For example, the so-called Kulaks, who were not much richer than ordinary peasants, were robbed and deported to Siberia to die of cold and starvation in the name of the collectivization of the means of production. Later, the lack of these people and their skills caused, according to various estimates, the death of 10 million people from hunger, mainly in Ukraine. One can not ignore the influence of strong indoctrination on the mentality of people. The state was so firmly anchored in the human mind that everything was seen through its prism. Almost a third of the population, in Eastern Germany alone, was informers. It means that if you lived in an apartment with two other families, a total of six people, then two of them were informers. In such a system nobody trusted anyone, everyone lived in constant fear that a neighbor would put them in the Gulag because of some trivia. Gulags themselves were monstrous labor camps, where people starved to death during backbreaking and ineffective work. I recommend the book "Archipelago Gulag" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, if you are interested in this subject. I do not accuse the author of inconsistency or bias. I am a huge fan of K&G myself and probably in subsequent materials the topics that I have touched will be included. Just knowing how terrible life was in the USSR (I'm from Poland, and my family is partly from Ukraine and has experience), it is strange to watch the material in which the USSR is shown as a country that wanted to meet the needs of its citizens very much and give power in the hands of the people, without stressing how much they were just empty slogans in the mouths of totalitarians who did not care about the deaths of hundreds of millions of citizens. And I know that the material is about ideologies, not realities, but just as capitalism was well-scored for its mistakes, it seems to me that the USSR was treated too gently. tl; dr Great video, but could more reflect the realities of the USSR. (I wrote from a Google translator, so do not be pretentious about syntax and grammar :P) Peace&Love

[@kibicz]

Pretty much this - the video is too apologist to evils of communism - and that is what i hate about former "Westerners" -they idealize communism as something equal to freedom of democracy and capitalism, something utopistic, that almost worked. Not as inherently evil ideology - at least - equal to national socialism, with economy that only lives out of reserves from former system. Greetings from former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.

[@ciarancassidy7566]

I honestly don't think this video has the scope to cover everything evil being done by either side. I think your comment makes the mistake of ignoring the fact that capitalism in the 20th century up to today was and is also built upon millions of deaths and slave labour. From the deaths from US interventionism to prevent communist dissemination to the millions of people across the world dying of starvation (if evenly distributed there is enough food being produced today to feed 10 billion people), the millions dying of preventable diseases while less than 100 people have enough wealth to vaccinate every person in the world, to the billions of people living in wage slavery today, literally in worse conditions and with a similar degree of freedom as slaves of antiquity. The difference is that capitalist countries export the horrible implications of their economic system to the developing world which is then ignored. Although I agree that the authoritarian communist systems were awful, just not as far from moral equivalence as you might imagine.

[@graysonguinn1943]

@@kibicz Equal to the Nazis? Not at all. Communism's ideal is that everyone is living in fine and equal living conditions and that their labor is rewarded appropriately. The Nazi ideal is that a large portion of the world is exterminated and then the rest are subjugated by the Germans forever. There is nothing inherently bad about Communism, but rather that reaching its goal is difficult and often leads to hardship. You also say that the economy of a communist state is based on the previous government, which is also entirely wrong. The Russian Empire was an unindustrialized, uneducated, and unequal country and the Soviet Union took what was left after the civil war and rebuilt Russia to be stronger than the previous Empire had ever been.

[@arethmaran1279]

@@graysonguinn1943 Actually, they would have allowed ethnic enclaves to exist in their respective parts of the world. Also, there is SO MUCH inherently bad with Communism, all you have to do is ask someone who lived in one of the Eastern Bloc countries.

[@chomikus04]

@@ciarancassidy7566 I am aware that capitalism also has its own sins. My commentary was to stress that in my opinion, in this particular material, communism was treated more gently than it deserves.

[@purpleblah2]

A very balanced analysis, pointing out the flaws and positives of both systems.

[@MjaucastRenzhion]

Amazing how objective and informative this video is! Finally! Hats off to you sir

[@이준희-d9z]

Well this is going to be a clean comment section...

[@nsms1297]

Correct

[@grandadmiralthrawn3164]

Its going to be filled with crazy American capitalists

[@brookswashere4661]

@@grandadmiralthrawn3164 haha I see a hypocrite commie who never thinks twice

[@rossplendent]

The dichotomy presented around 9:03 is a perfect illustration of the state of affairs with these ideologies: in capitalism, rights are theoretical. In communism, they are material. You can argue all you want about the real-world implementation of these ideologies, but for me personally, I'd rather strive for real rights over theoretical ones.

[@andreman2767]

As sympathizer of planning economy, i need to emphasize - first part about economics was excellent, short, capacious and correct for both sides. Thanks for this series!

[@rocadezona85]

OK here's my two cents on the topic of rights:I think the American approach is the concept of rights as things you are born with and the obligation of government is to NOT infringe upon them,not necessarily things that are to be provided to you. For example,you are born with your life,your body, your mind,the right to life,right to speak and think freely. Now the concept of rights as things that are guaranteed to be provided to you is almost a contradictory concept since food,shelter and even health care, ( not Health) are not things you are born with but that are the result of human labor, so when you have the right to the fruits of the labor of your fellow human, that is in effect the privilege of being a slave master .In order for those material guarantees that are seen as rights be given to you, someone else's rights must be trampled over. Remember the State doesn't produce anything, the State only take from some to give to others FORCEFULLY...there's no voluntary transactions it's ALL coercive. I think is way more idealistic the concept of an all-providing State ,that a few brilliant planners are going to bring about material abundance, when empirical evidence demonstrates that free markets are way more effective at creating wealth and improving living standards for most than a system that consistently failed to deliver. Adam Smith, almost a century before Karl Marx in his work "The wealth of nations " was merely describing the mechanism of free market he was seeing happening around him,Marx,in a more idealistic way started talking about a new society, a post-capitalism world with some new order,predicting and designing the future basically. That to me sounds more like the scientist in the scientist -engineer saying.Nobody sat around designing Capitalism, it just happened on what's called spontaneous order ,

[@theparadigm8149]

4:35 Correct me if I’m wrong, but that was Engel’s idea, not Marx’s (which is why Marxism can fluctuate so much between anarchist-communism and authoritarian communism).

[@seanegan8150]

There's no such thing as authoritarian communism. Communism is STATELESS, classless and moneyless. Which is why it's never been achieved. Any self-proclaimed state trying to achieve communism never had the chance to wither away (some believe the state woll be cut back more and more, eventually transitioning from a socialist state to a communist society) because it either had to defend itself, liberalised or didn't want to wither away.

[@theparadigm8149]

@@seanegan8150 Good points! 👍

[@theparadigm8149]

@@seanegan8150 Communism is stateless, but methods used to achieve communism are NOT always stateless (were looking at YOU Stalin, as well as Mao, Hoxha, Lenin, etc.).

[@webkeeper]

Something that could be noticed is that the "providing food" in soviet post-war world was due to the destruction the USSR suffered during the war. The US never saw such damage, and while the USSR had to rebuild itself, the US had only progress. Stalin achievement in rebuilding the USSR, which yes caused enough, is great never the less. Transforming for Tsarist times into something entirely new and untested in the country ravaged post-WW1 and after that, a civil war is quite the task. Furthermore, the intellectual exodus from Russia created a big vacuum, this vacuum was filled with people who had no knowledge of the subject and they were pressured by above rank which was also part of the filled vacuum. This brought tragedies.

[@kurtobermeyer3356]

By "exodus" don't you mean purge?

[@janno288]

Finaly an unbiased view of both systems, thank you

[@sonalidesilva3921]

I really liked this video. Got so much information for my studies .also It' s not boring to listen.

[@rnklv8281]

Enjoyed your video. Ideologies may seem noble and just in the logical world (our minds), but difficult to apply in the real physical world (which is not ideal or perfect).

[@kylevswild]

good video boss. will be playing this for my class

[@karyotesnyan7265]

Thanks for offering a non-biased explanation of U.S. capitalism and USSR communism!

[@heidiwhiting443]

Thank you for your video, it really placed a clear view towards capitalism and communism. It helped me learn both sides thank you

[@jonathanvasquez2162]

I really appreciate your channel. You truly know how to give two different view points in a fair manner that doesn't favor one side or an other, and that's priceless in a world where everyone view loaded words like communism or capitalism as absolutes.

[@TheColdWarTV]

Thank you for watching. Much appreciated.

[@kgldude]

I’m always skeptical of presentations of Cold War ideology from Americans, because most tend to have a national bias towards capitalism, while the few who oppose capitalism often take it too far and engage in Stalin apologia. I’m pleasantly surprised that this was a very even-handed presentation of the ideals of both sides which equally highlights the failures of the Soviets’ efforts to uphold their professed ideas and the Americans’ hypocrisies when it came to applying theirs both at home and abroad.

[@AFT_05G]

I mean considering capitalism is the only economic system that somehow succeeded modern history it's no wonder America and West has a bias towards it.

[@Haidarwaleed66]

I'm loving this !

[@TheColdWarTV]

Thank you.

[@poi2lkj3mnb]

It is a shame that these two ideologies synthesized into state authoritarian capitalism. We got the worst of both worlds instead of the best of both.

[@dheosilalahi7241]

4:43 Stalin did something in Soviet Union after Lenin dead Marx be like : something wrong i can't feel it

[@HxH2011DRA]

I hope y'all will eventually cover the labor theory of value and how even Adam Smith believed in it.

[@frankySR21]

Except, in practice, goods and services are worth only what people are willing to pay for them. Regardless of the labor that goes into it, if nobody buys your good, it’s worth nothing. One can make the argument that artisanal products are of higher quality than something that is mass produced, but the price doesn’t hinge on the labor input per se. Although it definitely is reflected in it.

[@ivanmota9515]

(This is just a constructive comment not hate, pls) I know that this video only summarizes the ideologies, but the main and most important critique of capitalism is not the existance of unequality and recession cycles, but about the expropriation of the added value by the capitalists that create the gap between the classes - this violent and unfair system is supported by a financial system that due to the war between markets and flutuations on price values is prone to crash cyclicaly. On expropriation: the profits that a capitalist gets, dispite their initial risks of investiment, is *wealth stolen from the workers*, that could live much better lifes if they received the whole income of the profits (or recieved the whole control of the production, as said in the video); for work creates wealth not the contrary ; that property of industries of "basic" products, intended for human dignified life (ownership of the means of production) (for example: agriculture and manufacturing) creates a hierarchy on social and political levels: a sistemic lack of well-being and/or freedom for the working class and, in opposite, a concentration of luxury and political power on the proprietor class. I undestand the intention of the series, and i praise your efforts to give the viewers a fair and impartial documentary, but as a leftist intellectual i had to point it out, that unequality is a much vague term, and would not fit entirely on the communist canon, for "the first wave" of socialist and communist philosofers/economists do not advocate on universal *equality* of material products, land and services, but on universal *fullfilment* of the individual and collective material needs. So unequality (and the financial crises) is not "the enemy" of materialist doctrine, expropriation, the financial system and private ownership of the means of production are. The video is great, again, dont take it as a hate comment, i really like it, i know that this is not a political channel of criticism of capitalism. Well, keep the Cold War running, cheers :D :D

[@scuevas1]

Ivan Mota i agree, i feel like a lot of these history channels rob people of intellectual value by reducing ideologies and policies to cookie-cutter explanations for the sake of brevity. what makes these analyses better than what the majority of people are taught in high school econ classes? i also wonder why more versed leftists aren’t making youtube channels?

[@ivanmota9515]

@@scuevas1 Thats right... Well, i have some projects going, maybe sometime in the near future (1-2 years) I and some friens will make this left-wing libertarian channel project come true. It's international, so, maybe it will take some time to be available in english, we'll first record in our native language (portuguese) and then in english.

[@LarryPhischman]

1:20 the US government didn't give a rat's hindquarters about human rights.

[@nurithegolden5755]

Nice, needed this

[@kiddankula5480]

4:09 honestly this image is beautiful yet horrifying. Leaders deciding the fate of its people for the good or often the worst

[@patrickblanchette4337]

Great video guys! This an amazing and unbiased (or at least much as possible) look at the differences between the US ans USSR. 2:20 Though I will say that the Soviets didn't have the best relationship with the environment either.

[@garflied]

8:38 One thing I would like to note is that the USA and USSR both (generally) supported decolonization and things like the return of the Suez Canal to Egypt, so the USA was at least a little bit concerned with not coming off as hypocritical in their foreign policy. Great video by the way

[@garflied]

Although to be fair this is a cold war history channel so you guys probably already know this 😂

[@fernandoarista3302]

Glad this video actually showed the positive aspects of communism in contrast to cspitalism

[@justsomeguy3931]

You give a good analysis of the 2 systems, being general enough to not say anything wrong while still giving a good idea about complex ideas. You straw man nobody, and one would have a very tough time guessing what your own thoughts are. Very good! I hate it when history becomes "bash people we don't agree with time." Proper analysis should lead to adequate scorn in due time. One of the most moving thing I ever read was (I believe) from the book "Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered from all Sides." A US soldier, who truly believed we were there to help those people, was arguing with a captured VC. The VC said, "You think people have no right to avoid starvation, but the right to read Fascist publications!" To be fair, you should specify that this is Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. Many Marxists don't even make the jump to Leninism. Those who do, almost never avow Stalin. Bolshevism and what it became would be a better description. The Mensheviks, Trotskyites, and Fabian Communists (like me) would say that Communism is too broad a term. Like Islam vs. Christianity for the Crusades, one would be better off specifying when it was Sunni or Shia, Catholic or Orthodox. Even the Capitalists, there are different types. Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Laissez-Faire, welfare state NeoLiberals, etc. Also, you should have mentioned the religious side. Atheist officially, and always supported by the Eastern Orthodox Church is the USSR vs. the (mostly) Protestant and (partially) Catholic West. Freedom of religion (even going so far as to add "Under God" in the pledge and "In God we Trust" on the money after Korea and Sputnik...), vs officially teaching Scientism (pure Rational Materialism, reality is Nihilism is the law of the universe, humans are just mortal animals like rats or amoeba, religion is a mental virus, irrational belief in mythology, psychosis, insanity, brainwashing, etc). Both tried to impose their ways of thinking on this issue on the world. Also, Internationalism and collective Humanism vs. Nationalism. Awesome video as always. I have truly almost nothing to nit pick, I'm highly impressed. 95%+ of the time, when these subjects come up, I'm very disappointed. You restore my hope in academia :)

[@MoishaAPD]

I know this is an old comment, but Marxism-Leninism IS Stalinism, Stalin synthesized the ideology himself.

[@justintr4888]

In regards to the difference in quality of life between Soviet citizens and leadership, is there a video on the channel that talks about how (or even if) the Communist Party tried to justify that difference to the Soviet people? (I've been trying to find one, without any luck yet)

[@adebolarotimi-silva2049]

Brilliant stuff right here; great job ...

[@sasha022]

Although I am certain that one of the ideologies was much more hypocritic than the other (guess which one I mean provided I'm Russian), the Cold War is much more pleasant to be thought of as a historical event rather than an ideological one. So, in the end of the day, thank you.

[@genmontgomeree9888]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to question whether the West after and before WW2 was a (classical) liberal region that promotes free market capitalism instead of imperialist corporatism, much in accordance to fascistic economic doctrine (Fascist economic doctrine is called corporatism and it is best explained as the merging of the market with the state in order to fulfill public interest, which usually means whatever it's administration decides). There was and still is a lot of regulation, licensing and subsidization in the economy which benefits big business and gives them a competitive edge compared to smaller businesses (all in the national intrest as Mussolini would say). Sure they were parliamentary nations, but that is more in line with republicanism and less with democratic. Just ask yourself whether voting once in 5 or 4 years makes your voices heard. The West also had problems with being colonial empires in which they discriminated against local populations. De Gaulle in France had very fascistic and racist tendencies, we can see it today still with France having the state very much integrated in the economy to give their companies a competitive edge over international companies, France probably has the most blatant form of neocolonialism by using its currency to control them, France fought multiple wars against colonial uprisings who desired autonomy from them. I find it hard to consider post-WW2 France as a beacon of classical liberalism. Since Britain never really changed their form of government before or after WW2, so let's also look at Britain before the war. Britain was very much an expansionist power like Hitler's lebensraum, they introduced the first concentration camps to force a surrender of their South-African Boer population when they revolted for more autonomy after Brittania annexed their independent Boer republics, there are multiple cases where they had colonial wars in which they ravaged local populations and took their immunity. Also if we think post-WW2 it is hard to imagine a Labour politician being pro-capitalism, Labour is a socialist party so it is very likely there would be a merging of the state and the market under their administration. When it comes to the USA, FDR switched the United States economy into a social-liberal economy with massive tax rates which again is a merging of the market and the state, this vision of how an economy should be run was inspired on the fact that the Soviet-Union did not feel the crash due to it being isolated from international trade. Still we must consider that the soviets created illusions of a well run economy by taking wealth from one group of people and giving it to another, the Ukrainians for example were starving while Moscow was partying in front of the eyes of the majority of foreign journalists. Similar the Germans created their economic miracle by deficit-spending and when the bill came due they invaded and robbed other countries. Add to that the USA's apartheid style policies. The idea that any of these countries today or back then were laissez-faire capitalism in accordance to classical liberal ideology is laughable. The Cold War was a conflict between corporatism and communism, change my mind.

[@kimobrien.]

The US was one place were the initial cadre of a new Leninist Party founded by the American Trotskyists survived both the Hitler and Stalin regime. That paper The Militant and the Socialist Workers Party still exist today.

[@BanCommies_Fascists]

Bullshit. And you are tankie.

[@BanCommies_Fascists]

You have literal zero idea about corporatism. If corporatism was the west's primary economic system then the UK wouldn't have banned British union of fascists. Also imperialism has nothing to do with fascism. Imperialism is a capitalist system an authoritarian capitalist system. That's why the cold war is commonly known as Communism vs Anti-communism not Liberalism vs Communism. West itself was liberal democracy but not all of their allies were Democratic. Only two of the allies of the west were "Fascist". That being Spain and Iran. They legitimately followed the corporatist model. Many of the western allied nations were economic nationalists and authoritarian nationalist. South Korea, Pakistan, Taiwan weren't liberal democracies. Economic Nationalism is somewhat middle ground of government interfering in the economy for the "Nation". Trade barriers and protectionism were the norm for those economic. Not so liberal after all. While Soviet allies were more homogeneous. As most of their allies were Marxist-leninist One party state. They had loose alignment with Non-Communist socialist countries like India, socialist countries in middle East and Africa. So the cold war can be described as the Left vs the anti-left. Anti left includes Liberals, centrists, right of center and even far right fascists. The allies of the west might've embraced economic nationalism or corporatism the core west was liberal economically and socially.

[@thetawaves48]

What happened to the enormous wealth of the Russian country under Nicholas II? How did the Soviet Union distribute the wealth and power of the monarchy?

[@impaugjuldivmax]

You said nothing about the roots of the systems.. as if the history started in 1945. Before communism, Russia had the tsarism system America never knew and that provoked a socialist choice

[@TheColdWarTV]

Yes, as this is a video about capitalism and socialism within the Cold War and it is less than 11 mins. A whole channel needed to start from the roots and explain everything.

[@impaugjuldivmax]

@@TheColdWarTV Just a few seconds to mention that both systems appeared not just for fun

[@orestisbe6978]

So, are there any examples of workers owning the "things that drive the economy" in real life? And by that, I mean the actual people working there, not the state/goverment.

[@andreman2767]

In theory, collective ownership implementing throgh government. At this point very important to control government by people. However it's not single view on socialist economy (there is many) and cooparative ownership on means of productions by it's workers is one of it. In USSR this ownership was realized too. For example - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz

[@kurtobermeyer3356]

@@andreman2767 All that to say, the answer to his question is "no"

[@mauricioaguilar7227]

2 Years late but the anarchist in the spanish revolution of 1936 and civil war is one of the few or at least that i know cases of the workers actually owning the means of production if thats what you mean. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936#Worker_Control

[@stacey_1111rh]

Great channel. Great work.

[@devinbae9914]

Excellently presented! This is a very good video.

[@detgrsketestamente3821]

Awesome. Thank you for creating this video :-)

[@paulgoodridge2269]

Joseph Stalin "doesn't matter who votes it matters who counts the votes."

[@Fangtorn]

To give context, the full quote is actually: "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this - who will count the votes, and how." And Stalin was talking about a specific vote of the Central Committee, not elections and voting in general.

[@giansideros]

I applaud your definition of capitalism, it's a surprise as most people tend to make the mistake of thinking it's about liberty, free trade and markets when it's about the relationship between capital and wage labourers.

[@TheColdWarTV]

Thank you for watching.

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

@@TheColdWarTV So, what's you're take on the view that the US was the main cause of the Cold War? Theres an argument in favour of that, I think.

[@MCorpReview]

But once Americans defeated the sovs, they resumed tariffs. Flexibility is simply superiority.

[@amigoami2800]

Under socialism in the USSR real incomes and wages were higher than now in capitalist Russia. On that salary which received the majority of the population it was possible to buy more food than now. And the food was real and tasty, not artificial, chemical like it is now. There was free higher education and medical care. The working day was shorter and people retired earlier. Vouchers to health resorts and resorts on the black and Baltic sea. Low rent and utilities. Low fare on public transport, trains and planes. And most importantly, people were getting free housing. For example, my parents got an apartment of 82 square meters in 1983. (Moscow) for three people. My parents were ordinary people. Now, the cost of this apartment is such that no more than 1% of the population of Russia can afford to buy such an apartment. The majority of the Russian population believes that the 60s-80s is the best time in the history of Russia. And this is despite the anti-Communist propaganda of Putin's authorities who every day denigrate the Soviet past in the media. Under socialism, Russia developed at a rapid pace, under the capitalist regime only degrades.

[@gingertoast6216]

Where i could get this soundtrack ???

[@sambradley7393]

thumbs up for objectivity!