Socialism Is a Useless Word and We Need to Stop Using It

Socialism is an old term, and a very broad one. Popularized with Marx back in the 1850s with The Communist Manifesto, socialism and communism became popular terms during the 20th century. But now, with Bernie Sanders, Obama, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong Un being called socialists, what does "socialism" even mean? What is its definition, and does it even have one?
0:00 Intro
0:55 I briefly explain definitional constructivism
2:32 Socialism doesn't work as a word and it means nothing
8:32 Arguing about what Socialism is is pointless
12:40 I VERY briefly explain Marxist theory
16:00 Ok... so are any of these people even Marxists?!
18:05 Seriously, "Socialism" makes having conversations harder
20:49 So... how do we fix this?
Music credit:
Soviet National Anthem
Turkish March by Mozart
Red Sun in the Sky
Heartache by Toby Fox
Confronting Myself by Lena Raine
Scattered and Lost by Lena Raine
Another Medium by Toby Fox
Resurrections by Lena Raine

[@thehayze259]

EVERYONE! I want to apologize for something I may have implied at 17:31, "All of the people on the right [side] are genocidal monsters, all of the people on the left aren't, at least not as much." This was phrased HORRIBLY and inadvertently implied that Hitler was not a genocidal monster. He absolutely was, and was one of the worst. I'm sorry.

[@anselmenator]

Of course, a big part of the reason for the vagueness is deliberate misinformation over a large period of time.

[@thehayze259]

Oh yeah, 100%. A lot of it was completely intentional as a means of defaming socialists, but it definitely didn't help that they were self-identifying as being part of the same political group as several genocidal dictators.

[@huehuecoyotl3313]

Exactly what I was just about to comment. Thank you.

[@justicecadet5530]

@@thehayze259is there any ideology a person could hold that only has a morally pure following and completely undisputed definition?

[@steventorres5546]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aoOsd5qli7OJi7M​@@thehayze259

[@rolie2713]

Maga communism real

[@myri_the_weirdo]

I mean, isn't it why we use anarchism, syndicalism, Trotskyism, social democracy, Maoism and friends?

[@thehayze259]

It's a big reason for it for sure, I think we should use those terms more. They're just more specific and descriptive than "socialism" is. Well, Anarchism can have some different connotations, but that's the exception.

[@TIENxSHINHAN]

@@thehayze259people use those terms a lot lol. Lenin was a Marxist, Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist who followed the path Lenin laid out, Mao was a Marxist-Leninist with anarchist leanings and those anarchist leanings formed Mao Zedong Thought. The Black Panther Party was greatly influenced by Mao Zedong Thought and were some of the first people outside of China to apply Mao's ideas to their conditions, which made them early Marxist-Leninist-Maoists. Xi Jinping claims to be a follower of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought but he's more of a follower of Dengism. Socialism means the workers own the means of production, communism means a classless, moneyless, stateless society. It's like how Christianity means you believe in Jesus as the savior of humanity but depending on your location, culture and a ton of other things, you may be part of a different denomination. That doesn't make Christianity a meaningless term.

[@Snufflegrunt]

Oxford politics grad here with a thesis on “Ideological Political Discourse Within the Anglosphere.” I mainly focused on the term “liberalism”, which I posit is even more vague than “socialism”, but I think I can still add something. Please try not to infer my own political ideology from this, as I am attempting to be as academic as possible here, at least within the confines of a YT comment. TLDR, don’t get hung up on absolutes. Firstly, socialists have been infighting among themselves about what the word means since at least the mid 19th century. The term is, at this point, almost intentionally vague, especially when used by the media. They have a lot of strings attached to them. Broadly speaking, socialism can be defined as “collective ownership”, but the issue is what exactly that constitutes, and how far it should go. It definitely defines what socialism ISN’T to some extent - for example anarcho-capitalism is 100% not socialism. Usually, a more democratic political system will have some form of what CAN BE described as socialism as part of its political system, since the leaders would be chosen literally by the collective. Marx was pretty into that, and things like the weekend, progressive taxation and the minimum wage come straight from his writings. If you hear the word “socialism” by itself in the modern day, you should probably ignore it, as it’s likely more or less part of a piece of agitprop, especially in the US. However, when certain *forms* of what are commonly considered socialism are mentioned, eg Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, etc, it’s likely worth paying more attention to. These ideas often have more clear ideological definitions and histories, but can still be lumped in with the VERY broad tent that is the word “socialism.” It’s not a useless term, it’s just overused by people who don’t know better. I know that you tell commenters not to get hung up on definitions, but… that’s what your video is about, so you’re pretty much telling us not to comment at that point. I also take issue with your statement that “Marx didn’t get hung up on the difference between socialism and communism.” He did. His “Manifesto” lays it out pretty clearly - he saw socialism as part of the transition from a market economy to a theoretical communist utopia. This would’ve involved what he called the “vanguard state”, which is how most self-styled communist governments justify their authoritarianism. I hope this comment sparks some positive discussion.

[@thehayze259]

Thank you, this was a very interesting comment. Really appreciate the input! And yes, I generally agree. "Socialism" on its own doesn't really reveal much - it reveals that the person ISN'T a few things, like you mentioned, but they might even still be a capitalist social democrat who calls themself a socialist. It's really more valuable when they give themselves a specific label like Maoist or Democratic Socialist, like you mentioned. I do think the term is still functionally useless in a ton of contexts, although it might still work in academia or in certain interpersonal interactions. I do have a question about the last paragraph, however. From what I understand, the idea of a vanguard state and vanguard party was mostly spurred by Lenin, and Marx was generally quite vague about the transition from capitalism to communism. Wikipedia wasn't my end source for this of course, but if you look at the Foundations section of this article, I think you can get an idea for what I mean: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism Thank you again for giving such a well thought out comment.

[@Snufflegrunt]

@@thehayze259 Thank you for your positive and surprisingly prompt response! Glad to contribute! No one single label will ever perfectly describe the political (or theological, philosophical) views of any one individual. These are all loose boxes, and we all effectively cherrypick to form our own views. These labels can be useful in *generally* describing a political opinion, but not in any detail. The only way to avoid that is to name your personal ideology after yourself, such as “Smufflegruntism” (lol) in my case. Beyond that, a full essay or even book would be required for any measure of definition. Marx was intentionally vague and viewed himself as asking questions / pointing out flaws in the capitalist system of his day than anything else. That’s why a lot of room was left for people such as Lenin to put their own spin on it, and also why the word is so ill-defined, despite Marx not being the first person to use the term. However he does lay out his theory of historical materialism, which describes socialism as part of the transition towards communism. According to Marx, socialism would involve a government run by workers that would “wither away.” So yes, you are correct in the sense that Lenin spurred the idea and fleshed it out, but it wasn’t his original idea. Personally I’m of the opinion that Lenin (although a man of MANY faults) genuinely believed that his state would “wither away”, but that it would take a lot longer due to the largely agricultural (frankly, feudal) nature of Russia’s economy at the time. Marx assumed that only an industrial capitalist state would be capable of moving to socialism, so Lenin attempted to modify that to effectively skip a stage of historical materialism theory. Again, nothing should be inferred from this comment with regard to my own political opinions. (I’m not actually a Marx fan tbqh, particularly on a personal level, although I have some respect for a few of his ideas.)

[@Snufflegrunt]

@@thehayze259 kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZPSmJqgg8R6Y5Ysi=QxoJirZhklgvt1hS

[@jimonaldo3108]

So, I see your point and could potentially agree, but I find the solution to be a bit half baked. It seems unwise to take a term that already has social cachet and get rid of it just because it is being confused and misinterpreted in all of these different ways (the correct definition being one based in the ideas of Marxism). To me, the issue to solve is not to change the term because it is too broad but to retake the term and continue educating and spreading the word. I think there could be a slightly deceptive notion forming here that if everybody's beliefs were easily understood with terms that made sense that we could do a better job of bringing people to our side and I don't think that's true. We can bring people to our side but not like that. Conservatives in our culture use 'socialism' as a boogey man because the term has built a kind of cultural shorthand, like how classical music in the background of a movie communicates wealth without you even needing to see any visuals. Isn't it interesting that to them, socialism isn't a term with any kind of blurriness or confusion? Just 'socialism bad'. They have been spreading this message and building upon it ever since Marx first hit the scene because the ideas are SO POTENT. Conservatism as a general set of beliefs is so shitty and toxic that it needs every bit of help it can get to prop itself up. Rich people funnel billions of dollars every year to make sure the people don't realize conservatism and the ideas connected to it suck ass. We don't need a new term. We need a NEW STRATEGY TO SPREAD THE WORD. Instead of how we seem to have let conservatives have the word woke, we should fight for the term socialism. Fight for it tooth and nail. In the process of fighting and explaining the word we will be teaching those around us about what Marxism is about and why it will lead to a better world for all of us. This is an opportunity.

[@thehayze259]

This is another perfectly fine strategy to have. Personally, honestly, I think it's generally a good idea to label yourself as little as possible, and just talk about policy. If you have good, convincing policy takes, then people will come to your side. "Socialism" is sort of a poison there, as it reframes all of your popular economic and social policy as being bad and authoritarian.

[@Kabutoes]

13:19 When a writer from 1895 writes like that, it’s acceptable and understandable But when I write like that in English class in 2014, I get berated

[@moresnet9931]

This sort of discussion about the concreteness of concepts is especially crucial for leftists to grasp and have. I've seen way too many self-proclaimed "marxist" claim that a minute deviation/aspect of capitalism is socialist if it was renamed to something vaguely populist ("The people's commissar"), which is frankly preposterous and abhorrent, as it leaves room for misunderstanding and abusing of theory to fit personal goals.

[@Kuudere-Kun]

What it means to be a "Marxist" has nothing to do with what Marx did or did not think of Authoritarianism or even really what his definition of Socialism and Communism was, it's about viewing history as Class Conflict. Hitler like all Fascists was a Class Collaborationist.

[@thehayze259]

Hey everyone, some of you might be wondering why you're seeing this video pop up as "new" again. I took it down because it was doing really poorly and I thought I did a terrible job in promoting it. The title was boring and the thumbnail was too, which kind of snubbed it early. However, I haven't changed the content of the video at all.

[@AlexLaBarre]

I'm so tired of hearing this term used to describe everything from social democracy and welfare programs to state controlled planned economies to just capitalism except you get to vote for your boss so thank you for making this

[@thehayze259]

Yeah. I feel like everyone, regardless of if they support one of those systems or not, should be able to recognize that the term is way too broad at this point.

[@justicecadet5530]

the definitions of the words we use are based on the context we hear them used or defined. if my definition of a term stems from disinformation from the group of people who have provably reshaped geopolitics in order to distort that term, or people who have openly ignored the original meaning to coopt the terms aesthetics, should my use of the word be allowed to end the conversation around it for all of the people who actually engage with the original meaning?

[@thehayze259]

No. Unfortunately, however, that's something that's currently happening, and I don't really see a good solution at the moment. In terms of another possible way to fix this situation, we could just stop considering certain people to be socialists or communists, or as I suggested at the end, simply adopt a more specific term.

[@justicecadet5530]

@@thehayze259 communists and socialists already exclude people they believe to be communists or socialists, and people have plenty of more specific terms for ways of approaching it, or misuses of it. this doesnt stop people from misusing it, and it doesnt need to.

[@justicecadet5530]

4:30 by that logic correcting people on anything inherently degrades it

[@oldsnake9520]

As a Marxian council-communist this exact issue is why I’m calling myself a Marxian council-communist. Good video overall and I agree with your broad point, but I have a few criticisms. 12:55. Not gonna lie I actually think the manifesto is probably like the worst source of Marx’s you could go to in order to understand Marxism. The reason I say this is because it was the one of the first pieces of political theory Marx wrote and his views became far more nuanced throughout his life. It’s actually so bad that he rereleased the manifesto multiple times with new prefaces that usually said something along the lines of “keep in mind that due to my new work this entire ass section of the manifesto has been made obsolete”. The best example of this is the preface he made for the manifesto after the event of the Paris commune which lead to him writing the work “On the Civil War in France” and eventually “Critique of the Gotha program” which are in my opinion his two most important works after Kapital. In “On the Civil War in France” Marx noted the Paris commune, an event in which revolutionary workers took over Paris and ran its entire economy as a directly democratic council democracy during a war in which they were vastly outnumbered, as the first historical instance of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (absolute control of the working class). The modern republic as an institution emerged from the bourgeois revolutions of the 18th century, and their primary directive was the protection of private property which was why the most of the first republics such as the American one made owning property as a necessary prerequisite for voting (and corporate lobbying achieves the same bourgeois control of the state that voting restrictions once achieved). It is because of this that Marx saw the Paris commune, the directly democratic self governance of the commune as the antithesis to the bourgeois republic, and therefore the only true form of proletarian governance capable of changing the base relations of society. In the manifesto however there was an entire ass big section where Marx was all like “workers need to seize the bourgeois state, nationalize industry, and lay hold of the state until class distinctions have been abolished”. Marx realized from the example of the Paris commune that doing this would only recreated the class relations of capital due to the way that bourgeois republic, regardless of who’s in charge of it, alienates the average worker from governance and alienates in the same way that capitalist firms do if an industry is nationalized. In critique of the Gotha program he called nationalization “national capitalism”. So basically because of what the Paris commune convinced him of he re-released the manifesto with this preface that basically said “everything in that section about the state is useless now go read my work on the civil war in France instead. It’s crazy Marx went from a statist to the only real distinction between him and materialist anarchists being their definition of the state as Marx saw the commune as a worker’s state where anarchists saw the commune as stateless governance. Next criticism: I wouldn’t call Bernie Sanders a “democratic-socialist” nor “Democratic-syndicalist”. A lot of people don’t know this but the social democratic parties in Europe actually started out claiming that they were Marxist and that full on Marxian communism through slow reforms was their goal. (They didn’t read critique of the Gotha program clearly cause Marx demonstrated why reform could never create socialism and only capitalism with safety nets at best there). The basic reasoning for this is that the bourgeois republic was built to protect private property therefore you can’t use it to vote away private property. The rich won’t allow you to vote their wealth away is a good way of thinking about it. Because of this Bernie regardless of how much he may call himself a socialist is a social democrat at best because the only thing he will achieve at best is capitalism with social democratic reforms. Therefore he is a social democrat.

[@nugnug393]

Great comment.

[@180decibel]

socialism has a pretty specific meaning, its just americans who lack the political bandwidth to understand the fundamental difference between the socialism as a description of policy rather than a distinct ideology... socialism ISNT a political ideology, unlike fascism, which fundamentally isnt inherently tied to the functioning of a state (as "strong man authoritarianism" and everything that tends to follow isnt a requirement for a state to function), "socialism" (aka socialist policy aka the "state does stuff on behalf of the people") is in some ways vital for anything that doesnt consider itself an anarchist commune, or atleast for a state when run by people who consider themselves united in some broad yet relatively specific way, i understand that being culturally united in the US is somewhat of an overstatement (at least if u ask some americans), and that particularly in the us state run education is downright neglected... yet still it amazes me just how ridiculous the political landscape tends to be

[@shadyspiritomb5285]

This is a really good example of the point that the video is trying to make. This is just one very heavily disputed definitiom of socialism, which sounds along the lines of "socialism is when the government does stuff". The definition i've heard the most personally is that socialism is when the means of production is owned by everyone, (not by the state as some other people would argue) and even that definition is pretty much useless as that would probably fall under marxism or anarchism anyway.

[@lzbscalle7943]

First I need to say it was a really nicely made video. One critique is that when it came to technical definitions, there was a definition for socialism pre-Marx. It is simply the "collective ownership of the means of production". This is why Hitler was actually a national socialist, "[ethno]national collective means of production". Marx and Engels also meant that they needed to implement socialism (by the definition i gave) before they could reach communism (abolishment of private ownership) {at least this is my interpretation}

[@thehayze259]

As for the definition of socialism pre-Marx, that still would not apply to Hitler. The means of production were not collectively owned, they were privately owned by the state (which was undemocratic), and Hitler never took steps toward the collective ownership of the means of production, even if that only included people he would consider Aryan.

[@azazelazel]

Also, the Communist Manifesto was published before Marx even began work on the first volume of Capital - it's flat-out wrong to call it an 'abridged version' of Capital. The Manifesto was a hastily-composed official document for the Communist League, whereas Capital is a laborious and systematic examination of the workings of the capitalist mode of production. Marx and Engels were also not the 'inventors of socialism' but I guess that's just useless trivia.

[@holtimt]

If Socialism is to be replaced by its closest equivalent, then we have to go with Marxism but certainly not Leninism.

[@fireyams3460]

The funny thing is "Capitalism" is an even more vague and utterly meaningless term because it is entirely defined by its contrast against Socialism, which as established does not itself have a genuine concrete colloquial meaning.

[@thehayze259]

I disagree. Capitalism began as a concept well before Socialism, and has existed for a much longer time. And as for which nations are considered capitalist and which people are considered capitalist, it's fairly well defined; I would say most people think it's something like, "a market economy based on the employment of citizens to work on the private property of other citizens." My experience is the opposite, I think people tend to define socialism (at least in their heads) as any system which is not capitalism, feudalism, and anarchism. I think this is why so many people can think of Bernie Sanders, Stalin, Mao, Marx, and Sankara as sharing the same ideology; because although they don't have many traits in common, there is one: they are all anti-capitalists.

[@fireyams3460]

@@thehayze259 A Capitalist may have existed as a concept before Socialism but the idea of Capitalism as any kind of coherent model of structuring a society or economy did not exist until it was invented as a contrast to Socialism. A term for which now just means anything good or anything bad about the world depending on how you personally feel about what Socialism means. It is meaningless.

[@lzbscalle7943]

​@@fireyams3460since the west is the most democratic, many people will tie capitalism to democracy. in reality, capitalism in its purest form inherently contradicts democracy

[@myri_the_weirdo]

21:00 Small neat pick, in a 1882 letter, Engels (the other guy of the manifesto) assured that Marx declared to Lafargue ''One thing is certain, I am not marxist'' (It's a pretty interesting letter btw, I think it was called ''letter to Bernstein'' or something like that)

[@TEEUnicorn]

Presenting it like that makes it out of context. Marx wrote that as a jab at the French Workers Party for doing "revolutionary phrase-mongering" and so: "what is certain is that [if they are Marxists, then] I myself am not a Marxist". Basically, "if they use that word for their tactics/politics, then I would not want to associate with that word"

[@BiggieCrescent]

Unfortunate reupload, extremely common KZbin L. Still gonna watch it twice 😤😤🔥🔥🗣️💯

[@thehayze259]

Sorry, I think I really screwed up promoting it the first time :|

[@borginburkes1819]

Socialism is what republicans call anything that actually helps people.

[@chrisnoctskie5869]

Maybe you should study economics first, instead of politics.

[@borginburkes1819]

@@chrisnoctskie5869 capitalism is just as bad as the white conservative male definition of “socialism”

[@ananon5771]

To add the right-libertarian definition (mainly to explain it), it is the state ownership/control over the means of production and private property. Other definitions basically stem from it, like any community that is collectively taking your property is a state in any way a right-libertarian would know it, and censorship is just inevitable with this concentration of power (you can't guarantee freedom of speech if one group controls the printing press). To go further, the n@zis (need to dodge censorship) did all of the above by any libertarian standard, even privatization was giving to to friends in service of the government, though the reasoning was different. You can disagree, that's fine, but wanted to add the one my side of politics uses. (except the austro-mutualists, but they are weird and use left-wing definitions for a lot of stuff)

[@thehayze259]

Yeah, this is what I mean! Thank you. See, I would just call that fascism (combination of corporate and state power, all that), but a lot of people consider it to be socialism too.

[@ananon5771]

@@thehayze259 I know, i was more-so explaining it. Definitions are probably the hardest part of lib-left and lib-right have when speaking to each other. Same as "capitalism" (which just means a free market and private property to lib-right, but is so much more loaded on the left) and now "Liberal" (with many lib-right wanting to take it back).

[@galilea78]

Well, personally, I think that socialism is when the government does stuff, so clearly it’s still a very useful term

[@lilpenn7516]

I feel like some people in the comments are intentionally missing the Forrest for the tree for the sake of having an argument.

[@thehayze259]

100%

[@justicecadet5530]

if i start calling you by someone elses name do they have to change their name? how many people would need to stop calling you your name before it isnt your name anymore? lmk if im missing something abt your logic

[@thehayze259]

This isn't a super accurate interpretation of my point. A closer one would be if there were twenty people in a room discussing a politician, and there are four or five camps that each think the person is named something different. Some argue using the birth certificate or the legal papers showing they changed their name at age 23, but if that doesn't convince the other four groups, at a certain point, it just becomes people shouting, "Their name is Ashley!" "No, it's Sarah!" "No, it's Frank!" And it doesn't go anywhere. It's not a discussion of the politician's policies or the things they've done, it's just a bunch of groups of people arguing back and forth about what their name is.

[@justicecadet5530]

@@thehayze259if some people are misinformed or lying about the name of the politician, the people with evidence are the only ones who can even claim to know enough about the politician to be for or against them. you’re listening to too many people.

[@theprodigyfmwm7509]

Instant like! I've been thinking about the same thing but for "The Left" and "Feminism" adulterated words that muddy the discourse and make discussion impossible. Thank you!

[@QuickNETTech]

The issue isn't the terms, it's the people muddying the water, using new terms will result in the same problem because they'll just muddy the waters again, after you fight the massive uphill battle of teaching everyone a new term. We're dealing with misinfo, the way to handle that is to correct it, not start over and fight to produce the same ends.

[@danielrhouck]

2:52 If I were in that room I would draw an uninterpretable mess. Not because that’s what I think socialism is, but because I need drawing classes if you want anything more than a stick figure.

[@danielrhouck]

More seriously, I think this is true but not at unique to communism and socialism as you say. I think “capitalism” is probably at least as poorly defined. Depending on who you ask, I can be a capitalist, a socialist, both, or neither.

[@evok74]

i totally agree but heres another issue marxist has the same issue as socialist and communist as of late

[@gamingguru2k6]

Most systems are focused on hierarchies. Socialism justifies anything in the name of equity.

[@azazelazel]

I find that people hate it when you point out that the signifiers they use to categorise and simplify politics don't actually mean anything lol. 'Socialism' is a great example, but 'liberal', 'progressive' and 'reactionary' are also used by lots of people to mean lots of different (and incompatible) things. Even the left-right political spectrum itself doesn't really work if you venture beyond news articles about electoral politics. It seems like the American media's use of words gradually filters out into the rest of the English speaking world, though, so I tend to just accept that 'socialism' can now mean anything other than free-market fundamentalism.

[@vitasomething]

Anarchist catalonia mentioned !!!!

[@justicecadet5530]

if i ask 10 people to draw the earth and 5 hand me back flat earths, does globe no longer work as a word? words are taught to people by other people, intentionally or not, so they can be heard and used outside of their original context. by your logic, no word works if it evokes different images in people with varying levels of information on the concept.

[@thehayze259]

The Earth being round is a measurable and provable fact, whereas political terms like Capitalism and Fascism are purposely a lot more vague. A better comparison would be if half of the population woke up one day and thought that the word "globe" meant "triangular." Even if everyone still agreed that the Earth was spherical, the word "globe" itself wouldn't be useful anymore, as you would have to clarify that you meant "spherical" and not "triangular" every time you used it.

[@justicecadet5530]

@@thehayze259 this isnt a good example because people wake up thinking something, whereas in reality people are taught things. the logic within this analogy barely even works in a vacuum, and the only outcome of your argument is giving up on the use of words if the definitions of those words are sufficiently obfuscated.

[@justicecadet5530]

5:09 why do i need to be able to agree with the CIA and the Klan on what socialism is

[@9Sleepyhead5]

Everybody dose dream about there own definition ( including stuff like: we have an all-knowing and absolute leader AND everyone in equal) And Exactly that makes it a useful term for people that are searching for power.

[@chronos2893]

Still a great video, but this is a way better title.

[@thehayze259]

Thanks! That why I felt I had to reupload it :\

[@OfficialJFD]

very well done video keep up the good work bro. def deserve more attention

[@steventorres5546]

This is what anti-communism does to definitions

[@ThyMessanger]

So, is socialism: 1. When a country is authoritarian and anti free speech? no, but this isn’t incompatible with socialist ideology 2. When the country functions off of welfare? no, socialism is not when the country functions off of welfare, that would be social democracy, it’s equity that usually appears In capitalist systems, although welfare isn’t incompatible with socialism, socialism ≠ welfare. 3. When the workers own / control the means of production? yes, this is the definition of socialism, this can happen in many ways whether it be the workers owning / controlling their workplaces directly, or that happening through a democratic government, but this is socialism at its core. 4. When the government controls the workplace? As long as there’s no private ownership, and the government is actually allowing the workers autonomy over the industry, this can qualify as socialism. 5. When there's democracy in the workplace? Yes, this can be a type of socialism as the workers are controlling their workplace, and there’s no private ownership. 6. When the government spends tax money to help pay for private programs? no, absolutely not, private ownership is the antithesis of socialism. 7. When everything is free and there's no government? this is closer to ideological communism / anarcho communism (a stateless, classless, moneyless, communal society) 8. When a single party controls the country. This technically isn’t incompatible with socialism, as long as there’s no private ownership, and workers have autonomy over their labor, although i disagree with the idea of a one party state, or state socialism in general, its not incompatible with socialism ms the term socialism has a definition, and it’s a useful term, the issue is people adopt and bastardize the term, or don’t do their research and misuse it, the same could be said for the word democracy, but no one advocates for the erasure of the word democracy. also obama and hitler were definitively not socialists, it doesn’t matter who calls them socialist, or if they claimed to be socialists, they we’re never socialists. neither is the Nordic model socialist, if it allows for private ownership of the means of production, it’s not socialist. people might disagree, but there’s an objective definition, and standard that they don’t meet to qualify as socialists, people can be wrong. it’s not even that people disagree on what the definition of socialism is, most people who have actually researched know the real definition, and everyone else is either being deceptive, pulling shit out of their ass, or straight up didn’t do any research at all.

[@thehayze259]

That was sort of my point. Even if you consider the word to have a pretty set definition (which I do, and intentionally did not include in the video), the fact that literally nobody can ever agree on what that definition is makes communication using it excessively difficult. Democracy has a vague definition, yes, but you can call any country, "democratic" and people will understand what you mean. The same is not true for socialism, which was my point. And lastly, yeah of course, Obama and Hitler were never socialists. But again, that wasn't my point, my point was that you will have to clarify that you think that very, very often, because if you don't, then a significant portion of your audience is going to make a lot of untrue assumptions about what you believe. Definitions are objective to some degree and constructed to some degree. If everybody woke up one day and decided that a "tree" was a small, six inch long furry animal, then it wouldn't matter if technically it's a large group of plants made of wood, since nobody would be using the word that way. And that's fine! ...so long as people can agree on what the word means. If half of the population thinks it's a big wooden plant and the other half thinks it's a small furry animal, then it doesn't matter who's "technically correct," nobody can effectively communicate using the word.

[@ThyMessanger]

@@thehayze259 Ohhhh mb dude, you’re actually right, it’s like what’s the point in using the term if no one even knows the definition because it’s been bastardized so much. i just wish there was a way to clarify the definitions of things for people so we don’t have to get rid of the term

[@Broomtwo]

Hitler was by definition socialist. He abolished private property and brought all business under the arm of the state (social ownership of the means of production).

[@estelasantos8184]

Some corrections 1: the Kaptal describes capitalism, not socialism 2: Marx described socialism and communism by diferent terms: fist step of socialism and second step of socialism Lenin gave the second step the name of communism 3: socialism is only described once it becomes reality (firstly in the ussr) as communism is materialistic 4: you totaly disregrd of socialist democracy 5: you fail to understand communal property and the reltion between State and community 6: to call stalin and mao facists is wrong 7: soviet corporations are diferent from capitalist ones, it is naive to directly compare them both

[@thehayze259]

1. I barely bring up The Capital in the entire video, that wasn't the point of what I wrote. 2. The term communism is actually quite old, and was used well before Marx was even born. Socialism was seen as the fancy new replacement term for Communism, meaning the exact same thing, but just being newer. While Lenin did distinguish them, Marx used them as synonyms. 3. Then why do nations like China continue to describe themselves as socialist despite not meeting Marx's definitions, and why is it that many leaders who call themselves socialists don't ever take steps to ensure productive power is in the hands of the working class? 4. I acknowledge it can exist, but there are no current examples of it. 5. How, exactly? 6. Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power. Stalin and Mao had control over both the corporate power (all industry in the country), as well as the state power (they were dictators), so yeah, they were fascists. 7. Again, how? Why?

[@oldsnake9520]

@@thehayze259he’s just a Stalinist. No need to engage with his idiocy.

[@GreenBolshevik]

@@oldsnake9520 any political ideology that doesnt provide a vigor science to need to understand and learn is worth not taking seriously

[@anythinggoesguy]

Part of the problem is that there is a no-true Scotsman fallacy with Socialism

[@thehayze259]

That is absolutely a huge part of it, from a bunch of different sides.

[@imlame174]

This video is so real

[@novinceinhosic3531]

This is because you have a metaphysical/mechanistic understanding of the term. You cannot fully comprehend it without understanding the moving history.

[@moresnet9931]

Mechanistic/metaphysics is when you concretely define a goal and not move the goal post every single time. The movement of history is one of overcoming and surmounting contradictions, not contradictions for contradiction sake (fuck Fichte and his "thesis-antithesis-synthesis") Marxist-Leninist brain rot is unreal

[@mladen5140]

I have quite a lot of issues with this video regarding historic aspects, but let's just engage with your main argument, which is that we should use different terms instead of socialism for different people who, according to different people, all fit the label of socialism You then propose we should use label Marx & Sankara as Marxists, Lenin as Leninist or Marxist-Leninist, etc. but this doesn't actually hold up when you go so far as to wanting to consider the conservative (& sometimes liberal perspective) too, because for most conservatives/right-wingers the terms Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Leninist etc all mean the same, while you may differentiate between a Marxist, a Communist and a Leninist, to the conservative, and to many liberals too, all of these just mean authoritarian, radical leftism, at best just in some different flavors, generally speaking, the further right wing you go, the more inclined you are to lump everything to the left of yours as the same bullshit with different labels, even if it has substantial differences that one simply may not be aware of You say for example Mao or Stalin should be called "Commandists" or something similar to that, but to the American conservative Obama's liberal policies were already way too "commandist", don't you think? When engaging with these people you'll eventually have to define everything you mean too, nullifying the effect of getting rid of the terms "socialist" (& "communist") for the purpose of a more constructive discussion without agreeing on definitions first People, especially generally right-wingers, are simply wrong on what they think it means, you're treating all these definitions as if they were actually all equally valid, when if one would scrutinize them individually at the very least the Obama, Nordics, Hitler & Bernie ones would certainly not hold up, as the people labeling these as "socialist" are conflating multiple definitions & concepts at once The most accepted & agreed upon definition in academia for socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, and (generally) right-wingers being wrong on not accepting this doesn't make the word useless, it just makes them wrong

[@thehayze259]

In terms of people using terms interchangeably, it's mostly because we see those words as being related. Socialist, Marxist, and Communist are terms that are socially seen as all originating from one united philosophy, so people uneducated in what they actually mean will use them as synonyms. This would not apply to words like "commandist." Bernie Sanders wouldn't call himself a "commandist," and there would be very few left wing political parties explicitly supporting "commandist" governing, so it would a lot more difficult for their opposition to link them to Stalin and Mao. They would be social democrats, something completely unrelated. Nowadays it's very easy, since both Sanders and Stalin called themselves socialists, even though they had fundamentally opposing views.

[@soko7awen]

Thank you!! Just because uninformed people use terms incorrectly does not mean that they have no value.

[@twipameyer1210]

It's not that Marx was the first socialist

[@jakusama8397]

I would actually make this arguement against the world “authoritarian”. It’s an entirely biased word that is just used by especially western liberals at countries that aren’t American friendly liberal “democracies”. Just as China has aspects of censorship, the west has just as much just to different concepts. Also calling China undemocratic or backward just reflects ignorance and a hint of Sinophobia as well as western hegemony. Just as you describe the word socialist as a word entirely dependent on personal beliefs, so is the word authoritarian, it is just that liberals in the west are just so used to hearing that China and other countries are “authoritarian” and so it must be true. I hope you end up reading this.

[@thehayze259]

This is just not true. It's true that the west has aspects of censorship, but they are NOTHING compared to what China has. Western countries still provide the right to freedom of speech and the press, with even state-funded media companies like NPR writing (mostly) unbiased and often critical articles about the president. While America definitely isn't super democratic-the electoral college is objectively pretty bad, for example-at least the citizens of the country have SOME amount of say over their own federal government. This was not true in the USSR and is not true in China today. In China, you can only vote for one party, and the only candidates that can run in that party are the ones approved by that party. It's an Oligarchy. The word Authoritarian is actually remarkable consistent compared to most political terms. You ask anybody what "authoritarianism" means and you'll almost certainly get similar answers. It's about censorship, undemocratic governance, and draconic law. It's better defined than basically any other political term. And just one more thing... I know the type of person you are, dude. Probably a Marxist-Leninist, I would say a Tankie. I've dealt with folks like you before and I've already heard your arguments. Don't think you can just spout nonsense in my comments section without me responding.

[@GreenBolshevik]

@@thehayze259 the one vote ballots were veto ballots while people got to vote in nominees and the democratically elected party members had a meeting for agreement on who to be put on the ballot. It was democracy working vertically.

[@justicecadet5530]

if u factor in the use of a word by people who cant tell you a definition of a word with any reliable sourcing into the definition of that word then u definitely dont need to use it lol

[@S0apyMan]

are you a socialist and if so what school of thought ? im a leftcom/council communist

[@ProjectMirai64]

Great work!

[@xx_xxxxx_xx4800]

bro did you just call Hitler "not a genocidal monster"?

[@thehayze259]

No, that's why I added in the, "at least not as much." Hitler was probably the single worst leader in world history. I realized in post that it could come off as me not saying that though, sorry lol

[@xx_xxxxx_xx4800]

@@thehayze259 alright, i kinda figured. they were all responsible for millions of deaths so it was a little surprising that you downgraded him just because he had fewer millions than the others. solid video otherwise.

[@andrewthejew6007]

17:36 video was pretty good until here. Did you really put hitler and obama on the marxist side. IK you clearly dont think obama and hitler are the same but still, what

[@thehayze259]

That's why I added in the, "some other random stuff" text. I'm sorry if I implied that, it was accidental.

[@ianstover]

Socialism is a category of thoughts around economics. Misinformation, and the perjorative use of socialism only dilutes the meaning to those ignorant of the history. The groups represented in the internationals were focused on the relation to the means of production and allocation/organization of state power. Liberal democracies with governments that do something for the common man do nothing towards those core issues. You need some demarcation to make clear your seperation from those trends, and unless you make a new system not drawing directly from socialist ideas, you should probably retain the pedigree. The level of awareness of the general public isnt a measure of utility of terms. They dont even understand the orthodoxy in their own countries.

[@laboricuadeborinquen2007]

This is some bulkshit

[@PierreTruDank]

Classical fascism is properly understood as national syndicalism with a philosophy of actualist idealism, it was a utopian socialist movement not a reactionary one. The original syndicalist aims were co-opted by fascism's ties to big business and finance as they would prefer to have their unregulated laissez faire private control of industry, commerce, and finance be subjugated to the control of the fascist corporative state than to risk a communist revolution. The corporative or rather occupational state did exist in fascist Italy as was promised by national syndicalism however worker's control of industry which was the core syndicalist demand didn't come about until the socialization policy of the communist Bombacci. There was also no "obsession with the past" as you claim, they had the futurist movement and their nationalism was predicated on palingenesis or rebirth, with an orientation towards the future. Mussolini unlike Hitler was a progressive semi-bourgeois nationalist figure rather than a reactionary one like Hitler, and I say this as a Marxist who opposes what fascism became. Your understanding of fascism is very poor.

[@ethansuna338]

Fantastic video

[@thehayze259]

Thanks

[@erikrigt4294]

Naw u trippin bruv

[@justicecadet5530]

ok ok last one. im in a room with 100 people, and i ask them what happens in the movie kung fu panda. some of them tell me the plot, some of them tell me about a characters arc, some of them just describe their favorite or least favorite parts of the movie. some people have only seen small parts of it or images of characters. some people havent seen the movie at all. some of the people among all of those groups lie about the movie. whether for fun, or because they hate the movie, or because they love it. considering answers from those who have differing opinions on the movie is a good idea because any of them can give you accurate information. however, considering answers from those who are proven to be lying about the movie, and especially those who have never seen it, would be decreasing the likelihood of getting any accurate information. if i considered everyones summary equally and uncritically, of course i wont have a clear picture of what happened in it. but since i have the ability to watch the movie myself, or even just confirm whether the people i asked had seen it, i would know that the other summaries arent worth considering at all. so if i were to say “stop talking about kung fu panda that movie has no coherent plot” because too many people told me that Po killed himself, i would just be wrong.

[@thehayze259]

This isn't super accurate either, because we have copies of the movie Kung Fu Panda. Even if everyone were to tell you different things, you can all still sit down together and watch the same movie. It's a physical, material thing that you can all observe the same way (assuming none of them are deaf or blind). However, a term like Socialism is not a material thing, so there is nothing about it to observe other than how the term is used. We have the Communist Manifesto, but to some degree, Marx even contradicted himself a few times, and changed his opinions over time. And ONLY using the manifesto would discount the writing of all of the self described socialists who came after, like Lenin, Luxembourg, Orwell, etc. If everybody uses it in different, mutually exclusive ways, then the word loses its functionality. Kung Fu Panda would not.

[@justicecadet5530]

@@thehayze259 terms are concrete in the sense that they’re made by people and used by people. everyone in the world cant all sit down and watch the real kung fu panda any more than they can watch the development of the actual concept of socialism. but 20 people, 5 people, even 1 person can sit down and actually engage with the discourse. see what evidence people have, see who’s blatantly lying (for example, George Orwell, a self proclaimed democratic socialist, gave the UK a list of suspected communists, and the Nazis famously began their reign of terror by rounding up socialists and communists, while using the term, “national socialism” to appeal to the working class population who had just lost a war). it takes more time but thats true of anything controversial. your argument is that controversy makes words meaningless. not that it makes academic rigor crucial.

[@UniversalistSon9]

I like mutualism

[@mikaeljensen4399]

So from the title and looking through the comments, I know already that this video is full of shit.

[@thehayze259]

Ah well, that's too bad.

[@Yura135]

so·cial·ism /ˈsōSHəˌliz(ə)m/ noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. that's the definition. what it was, what it is, and what it always will be. educate the ignorant, shame the willfully ignorant, fight the fascists.

[@Hugebull]

As a Puritan, let me give my input. From my perspective, Atheism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Humanism, Social-Democracy, Leftism, Wokeism, Democracy with Universal Suffrage. It is all the same. As an example, the difference between Socialism (As in the interwar definition) and Communism (as in the interwar definition), is whether to be pushed off the cliff by a nice soft well-spoken man, or to be pushed off by a large violent brute. It looks different. It sounds different. But it always ends up in the same place at the bottom of the pit. It is a materialistic utopian ideology. It is a technocratic ideology. It is an anti-Christian ideology. It is an ideology that hates anyone who is capable and great. They hate the individual. And they have a hatred for virtue, and has the singular aim of destroying the family unit. It is the ideology of the Devil himself. Destroy all that is good, feed into human arrogance, ignorance, and pride. It is a Social ideology. Economics is and always will be secondary to Social aims. And the aim is to obliterate the very concept of virtue. To wipe away the old. So the new Technocrats can remake us in the image they wish. That is why they must destroy the very concept of anyone who is independent and autonomous. In the Soviet Union, they had to purge the Kulaks, as they were the only ones who stood on their own feet. They were independent, and so the Academics rallied the Proletariat to purge them all. And once the Independents were gone, the Academics could rule the Proletariat and the Nation absolutely. National Socialism, Stalinism, Bolshevik Leninism, English Labor Party Social Democracy, The Chinese Communist Party, Kemalism, it doesn't matter where you look or when. To disarm the people. To destroy the independent farmers and small business owners. To force children to go through a decade of Government propaganda. To use the media to brain-rot the overwhelming majority. In the Western World, this has been achieved like no other place in history. In no other place and in no other time in history, has a people surrendered more rights and given up on Christ at a greater speed or scale. Universal Suffrage being a lie and a ruse to pacify the entire population, as it is a system that legitimizes itself by populism, mob rule, and demagoguery. Anyone who disagrees with a decision immediately becomes an undesirable. The Corporate Media holds complete monopoly on all public discourse. What they say becomes the mainstream that the majority will follow. And that majority grants power and secures that the overwhelming majority of the voters vote for the acceptable mainstream Political Parties or Candidates. And the government propaganda schools secures that the people are brought up to believe what the Academics want us to believe. Having tricked entire generations to believe in the muddled nonsense of Evolution, Humanism, and Gender Equality. And anyone who dares to raise their hand to question, is to be degraded and mocked. It is a cult. All of it. The entire thing. Atheism, Socialism, Humanism, and all the other terminologies and branches and sub-branches. It is all a cult. Anyone who dares to speak against it, is to be ostracized and vilified and universally hated. Anyone who supports it, is love bombed and brought into the warmth. I do not believe or support anything that came as a result of Industrialism. I do not recognize anything that came out of the last 200 years as valid. It is vapid and fake. Made up. Lies and deceit for the benefit of the extreme few, to seek the total enslavement of all.

[@thehayze259]

I'm an agnostic utilitarian personally, so frankly, I couldn't care less about them being anti-christian. I don't think it causes any harm. On an individual basis, I have issues with some of them being authoritarian or unrealistic, but I don't think that has any tie whatsoever to (some of) them being anti-christian.

[@Hugebull]

@@thehayze259 School shooters. Mass drugging of society from party drugs to medicating our youth. Unprecedented levels of wealth inequality through an international elite. The death of the family unit, as an ever-growing percentage of people grow up in broken homes. A complete surrender of our right to protect ourselves. Natural science having become a political tool and has nothing to do with truth anymore. The complete death of private personal virtue. All modern inventions. And you don't think it causes any harm? They are all authoritarian and unrealistic, that is what defines the entire ideology. They all try to create a Christian society, but without the Christ. ----------- "The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." - John Adams. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams. "There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." - George Washington. "No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." - Samuel Adams. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” - Benjamin Franklin.

[@thehayze259]

I don't think those creations are caused by declining Christianity, I think they're caused by poverty and corruption. A huge amount of drug users and school shooters are Christians, for example. But the Opioid crisis was caused in part by corporate greed from drug companies, and had nothing to do with religion. I don't see how increased Christianity would solve any of this. And throwing a bunch of quotes at me doesn't make you smart. Give me points, not the unrelated words of people far smarter than you.

[@Hugebull]

@@thehayze259 Poverty does not exist in the Western world. To say that it does, shows a complete lack of context. 200 years ago real poverty was the default. And yet, children did not run around butchering each other. The world has always been corrupt. So why would that all of a sudden manifest in just these recent decades? It is a nonsensical take. We have never been wealthier, we have never been safer, we have never had this level of comfort and luxury. And yet, with every material requirement covered, we are seeing the complete collapse of society from within. Star Trek promised that once all material needs were met, that we would have reached utopia. Yet for every material blessing we make for ourselves, the worse it gets. The more knowledge we have access to, the dumber the people are getting. A huge amount of school shooters are Christians? Are you honestly telling me that a huge amount of school shooters live their lives according to what Christ said and taught? Did they pray multiple times a day? Did they turn the other cheek? To claim that they were walking with Christ, requires a decay of the mind. I was not only talking about the Opioid crisis. I was mostly taking about medicating people with mind altering drugs, anti-depressants, mood stabilizers, you name it. In the US alone, tens of millions of people are taking medication to alter their brains, and they have it all on prescription. People are unable to simply exist in this false plastic world that was created by the atheistic Progressives and Technocrats. To claim that the mass medication of society has nothing to do with the removal of Christ from everyday life, then you are lost. We teach children that they are nothing but a cosmic accident and that they come from mud. And you don't think that is going to have any sort of adverse effect? It is more akin to child abuse. You don't see how increased Christianity would solve anything? Two centuries ago, Christianity was the absolute default. Atheism was not a thing. Then we started removing it for Humanism and self-worship. And we get to where we are today. It is an obvious and a direct correlation. The reason I quoted the Founding Fathers, is that they lay this out. They lay out the necessity for private personal virtue. With Atheism, you have no foundation for your morality. You simply make it up as you go along. And so, others can do the same. With Atheism, everyone can simply make up their own morality, whether this results in modern Progressive ideology, or to National Socialism. They are all equally valid, as it is entirely manmade. It's made up. And so, by definition, an Atheistic society cannot be a moral one. You cannot be an Atheist and also be virtuous. With the New Testament, the virtue and the morality is set. It follows the Universal Moral Law. A law more foundational and more set in stone than the laws of physics. When we removed Christianity from everyday life, it had an immediate effect upon Society and Culture. Having multiple sexual partners, women in the workforce, life in the suburbs, female suffrage, the welfare state, public education. All of it serve for the total enslavement of mankind. Only through Christ can you be an individual person. Without him, you are nothing more than a creature who surrenders to every whim and every instinct. How can you have a good nation when every person lives in complete surrender to their most basic urges? With Christ, you know about temptation. You know you can resist that temptation. And so, you, and every person like you, can turn away from the animalistic urges, and make something good instead. We all know a good marriage is the best thing for us. But having a good marriage is a very difficult thing. And it becomes impossible if one or perhaps both live life in surrender to their basic urges. And you can apply this truth to everything in life.

[@catoticneutral]

The nazis didn't ever call themselves nazis. They called themselves the National Socialist German Worker's Party. It was pretty much a socialist worker's revolution thing, just with a racist bent to it. Nazi was a shorthand name for them that their political opponents used when making fun of them, and since the nazis lost ww2 that's the name that stuck.

[@thehayze259]

Yes, it's true that "Nazi" is a derogatory term their opponents came up with. However, what do you mean by a socialist revolution? Are you equating him to Stalin? If so, I would agree. To Rosa Luxembourg? Absolutely not. I feel like you missed the point of the video, which is that I don't particularly care what people call themselves if that is antithetical to what they actually are. North Korea, Algeria, Ethiopia, Laos, and the DRC call themselves democratic, and they aren't. And similarly I don't think that just because the Nazis called themselves socialist, that that means we should rope them in with the vast majority of other people who call themselves socialist, seeing as most of those people hated the Nazis.

[@firecypher8398]

Socialism just means that the means of production are owned by the community. Just because people use it differently doesn't mean the meaning is different.

[@thehayze259]

They sure as hell weren't owned by the community under Stalin or Mao, and neither of them took any steps to make sure that was true. Were they not socialists? It's fine if you think they weren't.

[@JahNgomba-ir2zi]

Under the state Not the community.

[@firecypher8398]

@@thehayze259 I'd say that this was probably an attempt at getting as close to being "owned by the community" as possible, but of course their ideal of how to achieve that isn't the same as other socialists. I guess to expand upon my comment, socialism has one set definition, but there are multiple ways people try to achieve it.

[@GreenBolshevik]

@@thehayze259 social ownership over the means of production goes over my value for political "freedoms" and it is objectively true that in these countries especially maoist china the means of production were socially owned. Theres a reason they are the only socialist countries that survive because they had resort to some berocracy while trying to keep a forward ideological proletarian line so they didnt get overthrown right away. I mean if every socialist country thats tried it without democratic centralism has collapsed then what solution do you propose? For me social ownership comes by any means neccesary.

[@estelasantos8184]

LOL Now i understand !!! you do not have a dialetical view of the world but a metafisical so you cant understend definitions trought process and contradictions

[@thehayze259]

Does a "dialetical" worldview cause you to write words like "understend," "trought," and "metafisical?" As for your actual point, my whole video was about how there is currently a massive contradiction in the usage of the term "socialism" by the general public. If we're looking at the world dialectically, then the fundamental contradiction of people calling Obama, Hitler, Stalin, and Bernie Sanders the same thing still has not been resolved.

[@moresnet9931]

It's also funny how such "contradiction" and "processes" of yours has only diluted the movement towards communism or hell, even socialism. Dialectics is when you move goalposts and using the word "dialectics" without knowing what it actually means (which fun fact, it doesn't mean contradiction for the sake of contradiction but the overcoming of contradiction)

[@Yoosech9712]

5:23 He didn't really hate bIack people, for there was basically none of them in Germany, they were the least of his corncers. In fact he showed more respect to Jesse owens than Roosevelt did.

[@thehayze259]

No, he REALLY hated Black people. Here's a quote from a wikipedia article: In Mein Kampf, Hitler described children resulting from marriages to African occupation soldiers as a contamination of the white race "by negro blood on the Rhine in the heart of Europe."[8] He thought that "Jews were responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the White race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate."[9] He also implied that this was a plot on the part of the French since the population of France was being increasingly "negrified".[10] The only reason he didn't focus on black people more was that there were only a very small number in a country with tens of millions of people. Didn't mean he didn't hate em.

[@JahNgomba-ir2zi]

@@thehayze259true he definitely didn’t like them but he saw them just a tiny bit better than Jewish people

[@tenhauser]

The word socialism, just like the concept, doesn't work in real life.