The Future of Socialism

[@giovannimitrotta4378]

The Cybersyn project in allende's Chile builds exactly on the OGAS premises, and it had quite a success given its short life, you should make a video about it!

[@damienhart8912]

The gap between what the Bolsheviks wanted the Soviet union to become and what it eventually became gets me depressed.But comrades we must keep imagining better alternatives to capitalism otherwise (as Keynes once said) , "in the long run we(human civilisations) are all dead"

[@themarxistproject]

Agreed. The Bolsheviks inherited a truly complex and challenging environment. And with the pressures of the Cold War, everything only became harder. There were some remarkable dreams and many dedicated Bolsheviks did genuinely hope to build a new kind of society. As the first large-scale socialist experiment, the Soviet Union did make some historical achievements. I will probably make a video someday on what led to its collapse and why. There are lots of factors to consider. I'll add the popular Marxist saying: "Socialism or barbarism."

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

@Kake The Sailor Death tolls in the Gulags were not particularly high.

[@raelene101]

Covid

[@yorkshiremgtow1773]

@@antediluvianatheist5262 What were the death tolls in the gulags, and how do you define 'not particularly high' anyway?

[@bastiboyza]

The Bolsheviks didn't want anything we would recognise as good for the former Russian empire. Remember, they were the ones who overthrew russia's first ever democratically elected parliament.

[@Lettermark]

This was the most lucid description of why liberal democracy in the current use of the word, is absolutely BS. The picture you paint with increased participation and voting on policy measures is nothing short of a no brainer, and destroys any remaining notion that bourgeoisie elections are somehow representative of the people. I appreciate your visioning and do not take this lightly. Thank you

[@big_sea]

yes

[@thenomad4606]

Marx and Lenin would be proud of you.

[@themarxistproject]

Thank you! :)

[@jacqdeguernsey1816]

“The Brexit FIASCO” has literally no-one read Lenin’s work “On a United States of Europe”? Lenin would’ve been anti-EU AF!

[@jimmy-breeze]

@@jacqdeguernsey1816 doesnt change the fact that brexit was an extremely reactionary and conservative movement, spearheaded by fascists and the bourgeoisie

[@jacqdeguernsey1816]

Bryson also that doesn’t change the fact that you have been so clearly brainwashed by the MSM into thinking that way. As’k any ML comrade, hell, you’re even welcome to ask what was it? 60% of Labour constituencies? something ludicrous like that.

[@blankblank5409]

The Marxist Project 😁👍

[@pencil1758]

Excellent video! More videos similar to these, talking about how socialism could work rather than how capitalism doesn't work could create larger progress in developing a larger social movement. I feel that many out there already see capitalism as unsustainable but aren't convinced thay socialism is the answer. Keep up the good work!

[@themarxistproject]

The left does tend to fixate on critique of the status quo more than imagining alternatives. This maybe comes from Marx himself who was more focused on analyzing and breaking down capitalism than proposing concrete new systems. Critique is important, but so is imagining new solutions. It is an exercise that comes in particularly handy when people bring up the "it's good on paper but not feasible in practice" argument. There need to be fleshed out proposals that are convincing and enticing. Thanks for the support!

[@jeffengel2607]

Small-scale, familiar, working socialist/anarchist organizations (Food Not Bombs, etc.) can help a whole lot too for proof-of-concept demonstrations. And hope. And, y'know, getting people fed and not bombed.

[@watoski]

@@themarxistproject I suppose he is referring to this phrase where Marx rejected the idea of "Writing recipes for the future" (Because he thought he would be like utopian socialists), weighing that only the Experience of the Proletariat on the hard path of historical passage until its final victory would give an answer (and therefore enrich the Theory of this, that is, Marxism) or that the material means to solve the planned problems would begin to be seen when there is already the possibility of becoming a reality as mentioned with the Informatic / Robotics Revolution for the construction of this new Society that for me would be that Type I Civilization on the Kardashov scale.

[@DrDevilish1]

Globalization is socialism. The only reason why Globalization failed is because of capitalism, which was expected by Globalists.

[@NevetsTSmith]

@@DrDevilish1 makes me wish socialists grabbed the term globalization rather than internationalism, because internationalism implied perpetually independent societies and economies in competition with one another, when, eventually, we hope all borders will be dissolved anyway.

[@Constantinesis]

Artificial intelligence is essential to assist any form of Government in order to achieve better well being of the people. I am talking about specific technical-strategic decisions that are too complex to be managed by a party.

[@redlorax5380]

It however stays important to check if the decisions made by AI are right. Algorithms can make some weird decisions. AI should remain a tool, and humans should remain the ultimate check

[@Simboiss]

@@redlorax5380 True. AI is mostly based on statistics and euristics. Ultimately, any algorithm is written by humans, with targets set by other humans, and so on. Personally, I don't think we need AI to take decisions on how to produce things. It's not that complex. Availability of resources, speed of resource collection and transformation, sharing of resources between different uses, etc. It's not simple, sure, for a human mind alone, but it's not astronomically complex either.

[@Warkurus]

AI is not ready yet. If you were to map AI to human growth, AI would be the equivalent of a four year old child or so. Right now AI cannot even be tasked with calculating a game of pool (incident and emergent angle are not always equal). First AI has to fulfill the principles of Popper's scientific theory, before we can reliable use it.

[@jimmy-breeze]

i want this guy at the forefront of our proliterian revolution

[@lrgroene]

I cannot praise this video enough. Very likely the best one on KZbin on this topic, and should be required viewing for any Marxist.

[@grimtheghastly8878]

Is it okay if I use the charts In the video for an essay I need to write for my AP English and Composition class? The prompt is to write about something I personally think is overrated and this video inspired me to write about liberal democracy and it's alternatives.

[@themarxistproject]

Of course! Use anything and everything from this video and all other videos on the channel. If you want source material, email [e-mail]. Also, if you're comfortable with it, it would be super cool if you shared your paper to the email!

[@grimtheghastly8878]

@@themarxistproject That you so much. This channel has been an extremely helpful resource for this essay and really just conceptualizing my views on Marxism in general. You're doing a great job.

[@themarxistproject]

That's always so great to hear!

[@nurisianulkki]

Everybody go read Paul Cockshott's Towards new socialism!!

[@themarxistproject]

Thanks for the suggestion!

[@sazhaxeramezha449]

Sortition instead of election for higher level soviets and administrative bodies.

[@My-nl6sg]

An early work of China's most renowned sci-fi writer Liu, Cixin titled "China 2185" completed in Feb 1989 envisioned a socialist future in which democracy is completely digitized and that the entirety of the population could express, comment, elect, vote, and communicate with the highest organ of government directly through a nationwide web.

[@calico5140]

Social democracy IS moderate reserved fascism. Fascism is the decay of capitalism and you get Social Democrats and reactionaries as a result of the disintegration of liberal democracy. It's very important to realize this.

[@themarxistproject]

I think it is indisputable that fascism is the decay of capitalism. We are witnessing that reality right now in many liberal "democracies." That being said, it may be contentious to claim that social democracy is moderate reserved fascism. I should be clear: social democracy is simply capitalism with a (debatably) "human face." Personally I would say that calling social democracy any form of fascism is a stretch. But, I would love to hear more from you on that! Where do the two systems overlap?

[@calico5140]

@@themarxistproject Corporatism Class collaboration Burying social contradiction under a massive state/sense of identity. Extremes are the norm and will always exist. Democracy is a lie that inhibits social progress. If reactionary authoritarianism is "Fascism" then Fascism has been a constant throughout history which is pretty ridiculous stretching definitions that much. It's a shame so many Marxists are too emotionally involved with the term to use as something relavent to society rather than a meaningless fluid concept to shake a fist at.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

See all the proposals on my video called Radical Economic Proposals :)

[@thenomad4606]

Thank you. I'll give it a watch sometime.

[@kanamesuzaku1138]

Ill help spread the video comrade

[@themarxistproject]

Much appreciated comrade!

[@lars1588]

With the intense penetration of computers into all facets of society, you could have an extremely efficient planned economy built on such an immense amount of information. With the growth of AI, this could be an excellent application.

[@wcg66]

I like the idea of councils but having dealt with both neighbourhood groups and city councils, I honestly don't think they're feasible with the current mindset of capitalist citizens. Honestly, a typical citizen is so caught up in their own material, social, financial and familial world, they simply don't care enough about the "greater good" let alone a fellow worker. Any movement will fail unless the fundamental thought processes of individuals change. Unfortunately it will take a serious failure of capitalism in it's late stages to shift enough belief which inevitably means increased inequality and further marginalization.

[@pierreproudhon9008]

Yea, I was thinking the same thing when I watched. I honestly can't think of any solution to this, we need to somehow let people know getting involved is in their own interest.

[@grassystars]

@@pierreproudhon9008 Most likely education, offering people more things outside their capitalist phones and such. A rigorous education followed by a handsomely paid job with subsidized vacations and so on will generally push people to care about the system that they're in. + topics in the curriculum will play a big part too. Social Sciences, History, Philosophy etc should be taught, but not enforced, from a very early age.

[@TheReaderOnTheWall]

I saw this video early in my radicalization process, but I had forgotten where I first saw those notions. So very well presented!!!

[@cab4]

Such a strange thing to admit radicalization.

[@rumenkostov7949]

Good video. What do you think about the idea of Greek-like democracy in a post revolution state?

[@themarxistproject]

Thanks for commenting! I would not be surprised if the revolutionaries in France and Russia drew on the Greek model to visualize their own variations of popular democracy. The only distinction would be in the definition of what it meant to be a citizen, which if I understand correctly, was fairly limiting in even the most progressive Greek city-states. Probably the most important point is getting direct participation from the people. For a long time it was only possible on a small scale because of limited communication and technological potential, but now we can make democracy a lot more direct. The Greeks had a similar structure to modern council democracy because the voting public voted on all laws and oversaw officials's behavior. There were councils that drafted the proposals but if I understand correctly they needed to be approved by popular majority. What differences do you see between a reinvented Greek democracy system and the council democracy described in the video? There very well may be benefits that I'm forgetting in the Greek approach that could be incorporated in a post-revolution society.

[@rumenkostov7949]

@@themarxistproject Yes in ancient Greece there was a small portion of the population that was allowed to participate in politics. Also there is another difference between soviet democracy and Greek democracy. While the first is based on popular vote to elect law makers, Greek democracy relied on randomly choosing law makers from a group of popular candidates or from all of the citizen. This is the feature I was asking about. And yes direct democracy was used only in a small scale, but with modern technology it can be applied even on a world scale, and it should be a corner stone for advanced socialist societies in my opinion.

[@themarxistproject]

Perhaps a random selection for candidates can become possible with increasing standards of public education and less reliance on divisions of labor for production. That would free up the population to be more civically oriented and learn the skills necessary to perform duties of peoples' representatives. The most important feature of it all would still be direct democracy and more integrated political participation. These are very interesting thoughts!

[@rumenkostov7949]

@@themarxistproject Yes, I agree, and maybe there is a way to combine random selection and soviet democracy. So that the two structures can be accountable to one another and balance each other. Thanks for your thoughtful responses comrade!

[@sazhaxeramezha449]

@@themarxistproject Your assertion that "Perhaps a random selection for candidates can become possible with increasing standards of public education and less reliance on divisions of labor for production" is an anti-democratic sentiment (as is the very concept of election rather than sortition). I suggest you research some of the work that has been done in "deliberative democracy" research and in the use of citizens' juries. While most of that research and experimentation has been done by liberals, and the assessment they have made of its merits and of how to advance the concepts are also liberal in nature, it should be relatively easy to apply a dialectical/communist lens to them. One of the key findings is that randomly selected citizens are every bit as capable in deliberating complex issues as are elected politicians (which should be no surprise if you've observed the statements and actions of many politicians). At its base, democracy means rule of the people, or essentially is a synonym of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is based on the idea (as are socialism and communism more broadly) that every person (with some exception for severe mental deficiency) is capable of running their own lives, and of participating in the decisions of public policy that will affect their lives. If some people are only accorded the right to vote for others, while some select few are entitled to be decision makers *for* others on the various issues, that in itself is establishing a two-tiered citizenry, a class structure. Furthermore, what could be the justification for suggesting that everyone is capable of participating in a referendum (especially in a large polity in which it is impossible to have a single, coherent, shared deliberation, but many of them are not qualified to participate in a smaller deliberation, in which they can hear all the presented evidence and argument, and then participate in that decision? It is a backwards concept - drawn from the hegemony of liberal democracy. The framers of the US constitution were already comfortable with election as a method of selecting representatives, which had grown out of the British aristocracy, and perpetuated an oligarchic state - and they also wanted to cultivate an oligarchic (more specifically plutocratic) state that would protect the power of the wealthy. While the Athenian model wasn't really democratic in a way that would be acceptable to socialism because it was a democracy only for "the demos" - a specific class of citizen within a multi-class society, the concept of sortition, of sharing the duties of governance and decision making among the entire populace through random selection is the only method that can produce actually democratic outcomes - and more importantly for socialism, stave off the development of an "upper class" of politicians and bureaucrats whose decisions and actions will gradually serve the needs of the people less and less, and lead inexorably to revisionism and capitalist restoration.

[@josephgeorge5741]

No mention of CyberSyn, the actually existing OGAS from Allende's Chile?

[@Dummigame]

PLEASE remake this video. This is already amazing, but your newer videos would do an absolutely amazing job fleshing the topic out even more

[@Warkurus]

I believe the biggest problem with OGAS is that network theory/graph theory is inherently unscientific, because the falsification principle does not apply. Which means that if you change one part you cannot prove that the whole system will not crash, because there are always values other parts can take to make the whole system fail. Additionally you cannot predict how long it will go well, because of chaos theory, especially if the network has loops.

[@georgesoap1733]

Automated planning is the best method combined with decentralised planning ( workers communes ) .

[@marlonbryanmunoznunez3179]

Chile was in the early stages of the introduction of a computerized Planned Economy just before the Right Wing coup d'etat. Needless to say, all the hardware and work already done was destroyed by Fascist thugs on Washington's orders. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn It was very ahead of its time. I think AI (and not even the human level type, but non sentient expert systems) are likely to solve the issues that Planned Economy economy has (which to be frank, are widely exaggerated by Neoliberal economists, which hypocritically are always happy to use its tools, whenever they're in deep trouble).

[@Mr.Redink]

Starting at 10-11 min in. I said "this is phenomenal, thank you" Great video

[@Lukas-gn5yf]

Where is the background/thumbnail from?

[@Fallenburg]

This is exactly what I was talking about to my friends. The amazing thing about Council Democracy is that even back in times when I didn't know such system existed or knew much about socialism, I used my logic and came to a conclusion to propose a system which was like exactly council democracy, like Down-Top system that every lesser council can recall and impeach the council above to reduce corruption and increase participation and voting value of the people. As they know who their neighbors are and can go meet them personally if there's any issues, unlike liberal "Democracy" where people are forced to choose between two candidates which are almost exactly the same and will do nothing for them and nobody knows them except the bourgeois, elites and other politicians.

[@taknoef9195]

sounds nice in theory but everytime its been practiced its impossible to recall officials

[@mikehattias5837]

Great video thanks so much

[@Hakensnejbel]

Does anyone have a link to the picture at 1:36-2:11 for me?

[@shady8045]

brilliant video man. I dream of a day where stuff like this is seen as a vision of a future, or a common goal among all. God speed.

[@nenomiusdasbevolkuet9327]

Great Explanation💕

[@BrickGriff]

Under this model, and I like this model, whoever controls the sword controls the threat of public recall.

[@lucasbonhommevazquez]

Nice interesting video but I see a few problems. The first being that, although constant participation of the population in elections/policy decision sounds nice, many people "cannot be bothered" and would prefer to spend their times with other things, which could possibly lead them to dislike the new system. The second pronlem relates to the informatisation of the economy and society, you say computers would eliminate (or at leats heavily reduce) corruption and human greed and bias but it is important to note that it is humans who design such computers, which could lead them to design software that benefits them. Also, what if some day the computing system collapses, experiences bugs or is hacked? It would cause extreme disruption to distribution and would potentially cause famine and other related disasters. Thank you for your answers.

[@yorkshiremgtow1773]

Also, what if people don't want to have to give their information to a central computing system?

[@paulgaffaney7865]

The soviet council model you present just seems like Murray Bookchin Municipal Anarchism to me

[@joeschmoe2202]

lol, ok?

[@vidividivicious]

What is the painting in the thumbnail?

[@DxGamer6767]

I remember Venezuela for a time had a version of the ogas system pre 2000, it apparently worked really well before Venezuela was couped

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

There’s a few limitations to this. One is that it assumes all citizens to be informed, intelligent and well meaning. It also assumes that there’s enough leisure time to spend on all the endless council meetings and discussions of governance. These things can only be implemented where things are local, simple and no expertise is required. Even then you wont always get an optimal result, but its at least feasible.

[@yorkshiremgtow1773]

True. This is largely why State planning doesn't work, and is completely undemocratic.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

I'm saying even if it was democratic, it won't work. @@yorkshiremgtow1773

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

@@yorkshiremgtow1773 State planning has worked, and it continues to. What doesn't work is when you need the opinion of everyone all the time to make any decision. That was my point.

[@yorkshiremgtow1773]

@@hansfrankfurter2903 What criteria would you use, to determine an instance in which state planning hasn't 'worked'?

[@RomanticDrip69]

I think that governmental offices should be held by regular workers, I think this could mesh very well with a council democracy, making being part of a council obligatory, meaning at some point every person who is able will serve time in government, this could be done by lottery and would be a civil service akin to jury duty or a draft. Nothing more democratic than literally everyone being in the government

[@JZX834L]

Love the Soviet wave backing music.

[@darrellurban4577]

Very well done great advanced insight towards the importance of civil living.

[@redrumssam5888]

Future Property Owning Boug here, but I will sub anyway, lots of value here.

[@doit3409]

Thank you why not have both vertical and horizontal accountability?

[@noname-sg6qx]

Name of the music in video?

[@minhng7208]

Excellent analysis. 😊

[@khrushchevscorn6459]

*sacrificial offering to the algorithm*

[@lewisrobinson3380]

I’m curious on how OGAS would’ve differed from the Chilean Cybersyn/Synco program

[@aa-bg7zx]

Is there a book i can read which further investigates and explains the things you talked about in this video? I appreciate the video but I would prefer to read a full length book about everything discussed here.

[@themarxistproject]

I would recommend "Towards a New Socialism" for automated economic planning. I wouldnt say its political components are as convincing though. For political systems, Lenin's "State and Revolution" hints at the council models. I've heard "How the Soviets Work" by Brailsford is good as well, though I havent read it myself. "Soviet Democracy" by Pat Sloan is worth reading.

[@tomjoad1060]

Please, take a note that in the "Chapters" to the video you have "Gas", and it should be "OGAS". And here is the question: who will lead the struggle for future socialism?

[@vegitoblue5000]

NIce Video. Could you please tell me what the background music is for this video. Thank You.

[@antoniopaolillo7266]

Efence - Home

[@vegitoblue5000]

@@antoniopaolillo7266 Finally, I have the answer after six months of waiting. Thank You.

[@vegitoblue5000]

@@antoniopaolillo7266 Thank You. How did you figure it out?

[@antoniopaolillo7266]

@@vegitoblue5000 I liked it too, so I used Shazam!

[@vegitoblue5000]

@@antoniopaolillo7266 I thought that only worked on mainstream music.

[@imakevideos5377]

this is one of my favourite videos by your channel

[@alaechoulli6111]

A question: future socialist countries will be federal or unitary and on the social term will it be bureaucratic?

[@sazhaxeramezha449]

How can you expect us to know how future socialist countries will organize their political structures, and why do you think that different socialist countries might not employ different approaches? The people of a specific country, after victory in their socialist revolutions, in overturning a specific bourgeois or colonial state, will determine whether they will build a unitary state within that same territory, or whether that previous state had truly been several nations of peoples cobbled together by colonial/imperial interests that would be better governed as independent states, confederated states, or provinces or republics within a federated state.

[@Advaita-Sarwar]

great video! whats the title of sound track in the background please?

[@antoniopaolillo7266]

Efence - Home

[@samuelrosander1048]

Great video.

[@politika8087]

Although I agree that social media can and has led to increased civil engagement, it has also led to an increase in corrosive forms of engagement such as trolling and disseminating misinformation and disinformation. But socialism applied effectively could ultimately put an end to or at least negate the potency of these behaviors, so I digress.

[@noahberman5663]

Awesome video

[@EricRosenfield]

I don't think you quite do as good a job as you need to explaining how council democracy going forward will guard against the authoritarianism that characterized it in the Soviet Union. For example, it wasn't long after taking power that Lenin shut out the SRs and Mensheviks, initiated the first purges and created the Cheka, which effectively eliminated from the council "democracy" anyone who disagreed with the Bolshevik line and lead directly to everything Stalin did later with successively greater purges and his war on "factionalism" and calling anyone who disagreed with him "counter-revolutionary". You can't have democracy without plurality of opinion (that's the whole point), and if you're trying to do the soviet system "right" you need to be able to counter those kinds of criticisms.

[@BrickGriff]

That's right! Robot rights! I can't believe they're getting their rights before animals... But I'm here for it

[@onlinedirectdemocracyrevol6205]

I couldn't agree more about leftists adopting the latest technologies and how everyone could be voting on their smart phones. However, I'm for direct democracy and against "representative" "democracy" altogether, since in practice it's almost always neither. I'd like to find out if there are answers to 2 problems I see with this video. First, an economic elite, such as the bureaucratic class that took power in the Soviet Union, could take power despite having recall of representatives by making sure that all people running for office to replace them work for the elite, as we have in bourgeois "democracies". Second, how would the representatives be prevented from outlawing the referendums that override their decisions, or finding ways to make them useless, such as how referendums in bourgeois democracies have such high bars to getting on ballots that only the economic elite can afford to put them there, so that the people would no longer be able to override what they've done? Yes, the people could be better educated, but they need to have direct control of the government, or they will lose all control of it, as happened in the Soviet Union. (I fear that even then, the people could be tricked into giving up their power, in which case things are hopeless.) The people could set general policy, and leave technical decisions up to experts and micromanaging the government up to a civil service. But their decisions should come first, not to only override representatives' decisions after they've been made. Sortition could be used to reduce decision load, in which a random truly-representative portion of the population would be chosen to be representatives at any given time, as in ancient Greece. When the people vote for "representatives", all they are really voting for is whichever con artist can con them best.

[@johnsorrelw849]

I read that, aside from the political obstacles you mention, OGAS was not feasible because it was calculated to require a capital investment (meaning here productive resources put toward production of computer network infrastructure) as great as the entire military sector. They didn't have the productive capacity to do both. But if the USSR had a strictly peacetime economy (i.e. no cold war) it would have been possible. Yet another way the arms race defeated socialism.

[@franzupet4406]

If we implement pland economy and make systm work and use app for interacting with it for example app can sand warning to someon who plans to do something corupt before coruption is even done...

[@pablobarroso7193]

Do you think OGAS is still possible?

[@destroctiveblade843]

For any tunisian reading this you can summarise the video with 2 slogans: الشعب يريد و رقمنة الإدارة

[@terencenxumalo1159]

good work

[@730g9]

Music in the back ground?

[@antoniopaolillo7266]

Efence - Home

[@TheJayman213]

I like this *gestures towards elected representation with imperative mandates* but I prefer this. *gestures towards Sortition*

[@jqiou5865]

The background music is a distraction

[@ValaAssistant]

Thoughts on Democratic Centralism? On a balance between centralism and democracy?

[@ValaAssistant]

@SafelySwift what about china now?

[@ValaAssistant]

@SafelySwift lol how funny

[@ThePeanutButterCup13]

@*nullptr they abide my democratic centralism.

[@My-nl6sg]

I believe democratic centralism is only necessary at the stage of the revolution. As soon as the international dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved, vanguard parties' purpose as a centralized and advanced professional revolutionary organization becomes dated. The people will take over governing organizations democratically and construct a specific form of democracy suited for that material and historical condition which we currently cannot imagine.

[@leek6927]

It’s bad, there is no need for a compromise as centralism is directly a threat to the peoples power over their government

[@emlillthings7914]

I like the vid, but won't hit like because of the distracting&annoying background music, which was loud enough at times to be the main audio,,,, so you just get a comment 😜

[@aliakbaryahya583]

Great video. Very well presented of the Socialist political system. How about a well thought of socialist economic policies to replace Capitalism. No one id fond of Capitalism. But what is the alternative?

[@l3gacyb3ta21]

Socialism?

[@sudhanr6838]

Good one ! Can you make a video on China .

[@fredbaroque]

Remarkable video! But for the love of Marx, USE A HIGH-PASS FILTER on your voice! Your audio is ruined by sub-bass rumbling, which is very distracting.

[@scorpio.66]

Council democracy does not take into account the crushing bureaucracy and especially the liability to corruption that elected members have despite the imperative mandate. Dialectics can justify everything, why wouldnt it have perverse effects ?

[@mattw9764]

Very helpful. Council democracy is very similar to some of the ideas of anarcho-syndicalism. One idea not mentioned here is the idea of rotation of delegates, rather than election (i.e. everyone taking a turn as the delegate). There are pros and cons to either approach. When approaching these ideas from a libertarian socialist (i.e. left anarchist) perspective, more needs to be incorporated than simply democracy: concepts such as autonomy and free association, along with the socialist values of solidarity and mutual aid.

[@gofar5185]

a number of china youths in global media comments now know to say..., pick the good, leave the bad... as lenin said, take the unified direction and apply according to situations & circumstances... thats as much to share... its all up to any people agendas...

[@kippgoeden]

✊

[@MrNagano00]

A lot of leftists haven't really looked much into the blockchain, but if you listen closely you will see that the way this "alternative economy" is being built is getting closer and closer to these socialist utopias and ideals. A lot of people see the blockchain as some kind of acap dream, when in reality, you see that there is pretty much no modern project that doesn't talk about governance, that decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) are all the hype. That the blockchain is allowing people to get connected in a transparent way that is not modulated by the interests of a few but in the hands of everyone. I think the left is failing to see the potential of the blockchain because a lot of them simply focus on the "trading" part of it; when in reality, the usefulness of the technology is in its capability to produce completely transparent and decentralised institutions.

[@afgor1088]

The block chain is a read only database with a good password... That's it. It is not worth the hype you're giving it

[@randomname9565]

soviet is people

[@guyoflife]

Like!

[@thegethconsensus393]

Hi. Baby leftist here with a genuine question. The USSR had some extremely unpopular policies that suppressed religion. How was this able to happen under council democracy? Why weren’t those representatives recalled or forced by the public to repeal those laws?

[@wikipediahistorian3374]

There was a civil war, by which then many of these policies like election once per 6 months were recalled, and the party took control over the state.

[@cristiangerardinobilityhou5410]

Each country has its own special dynamics, hence its own characteristics onto the road of economic socialism. Different resources, different size of population and different trade demands require various strategies.

[@comradefromtheunknownkatlo6957]

comrade why did you leave india

[@whynot-tomorrow_1945]

Where is the judiciary? The courts?

[@themarxistproject]

The judiciary system in this political system relies on vertical accountability instead of horizontal accountability. Judges are elected, not appointed. They can also be recalled by the bodies that elect them.

[@whynot-tomorrow_1945]

​@@themarxistproject Okay, good, this is the point where I take issue. One of, if not the, most important aspects of judiciaries throughout the world is not just their accountability to democratic will but rather their impartiality in the deliberation of justice. As a student of law, I find this notion to be highly controversial, given the fact that we live in a society in which democracy is viewed as an inherent good. Unfortunately, at least in regards to the legal system, popular consensus does not inherently produce justice. It does not protect the rights of the accused, it does not deliberate, and it does not defer to circumstance or precedent. Such notions are artificially imposed from above by institutions, experts, and academics who have decided these are the proper ways in which to do things. And this has been the case for as long as dispute-resolution has existed in human societies, often in the most simplistic form as tribal deference to elders who have experienced previous disputes and possess advanced knowledge of how best to resolve them -- what we now call precedent. Regardless of how idealistic one's vision of the perfect state may be, integrating law into purely democratic processes simply produces a democratic deviation of what "justice" means. Namely, if you do not agree with the majority, if you do not conform with the majority, and if you do not defer to the majority, you have surrendered your rights and are subject to whatever punishment or standard of justice the majority decides upon. Rather than adhering to such a model, the healthiest legal systems have conceived of ways in which the minority of people -- and more profoundly, those accused of crimes or civil wrongdoing -- are regarded as innocent by virtue of being an individual, not by virtue of being a part of a collective majority. Law is, by its own confession, an unequal, exclusive, and elitist institution. Justices and lawyers are appointed due to their qualifications in higher education, not whether their value-set is most closely aligned with the majority of people at any given time. Because regardless of what the common man thinks or believes, regardless of what the accuser thinks or believes, both parties to a dispute are entitled to a fair trial in which all evidence is considered and all appropriate law is applied appropriately, even when their guilt is "obvious" to a lay-person. This, at least in theory, protects people from both the state and from the fervor of mob-rule. I am duly skeptical that an institution of justice where ad-hoc tribunals are convened on a case-by-case basis by a preponderance of citizens will fulfill any of these requirements. And, to be fair to the opposite end of the spectrum, I fear that if such powers were delegated solely to experts without oversight by public officials, the outcome would be an undemocratic regime dictated by judges, not by the people. Many states like the United States (adversarial) and France (inquisitorial), despite their plethora of faults, have found a happy medium between these two extremes insofar as such protections do not need to be established and re-established whenever a new case arises. If you are to form a state, you must first denote your vision of justice as it pertains to disputes among citizens and among institutions. The goal of jurisprudence is to find a balance between the rights of an individual and the well-being of the collective. This balance cannot exist if law is subject solely to populism or solely to elitism. And in order to achieve that, you need both horizontal accountability between and impartiality from these two forces. You cannot apply the same structure to dispute resolution as you do with legislation or legal enforcement, and I reject your notion that vertical accountability adequately fulfills this role.

[@themarxistproject]

You claim that popular consensus does not inherently produce justice, but that assertion seems to rest on your inherent distrust of the majority. Yes, in the status quo, legality and justice are meticulously outlined in a top-down model. However the only apparent reason to prefer this model rests on the basis of precedent? That dispute-resolution has always existed in some top-down configuration across all human history -- and I hesitate to accept that assertion -- does not alone demonstrate a sufficient condition to preserve the status quo. On the contrary, it is consistent with the Marxian observation that practically all societies up to the present have aligned with some top-down/ minority over majority structure. Without entertaining the perspective that the majority is inherently incompetent and/or tyrannical, I see no reason why a democratized legal system could not retain accountability and impartiality. There is no need to abolish legal professions or alter their operational paradigms. They can be elected based on experience, education, and other qualifications , i.e. along the same parameters as are used today for their appointment. Similarly, they would be subject to recall not based on their values or beliefs, but based on the adequacy of their arbitration. Given the substantial change in the intellectual development of the majority, as well as the vast accessibility of information, adopting a vertical accountability model is not only feasible, but also preferable. I should qualify that statement by admitting that vertical accountability is obviously not appealing to the elite, which by definition have always found themselves in the minority. That is why they have been so eager to promote the notion "mob rule" or the "tyranny of the majority." Disregarding the epistemological underpinnings of the anti-democratic position, even the old arguments of the impracticality of majority rule no longer hold the same ground they once did. The elite can no longer claim to be more "qualified" to rule (or arbitrate) by their nature, despite their centuries-long attempt to exclude the masses from the means of intellectual development. Though we do not agree, I appreciate your comments. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[@whynot-tomorrow_1945]

@@themarxistproject Well, there in lies the problem, does it not? I distrust all power. When I discuss things with actual, self-avowed leftists and Marxists, I don't hear them entertain the notion that majorities can make mistakes, or even be wrong. Just because a preponderance of people believe one thing to be true does not make it true, and for most who have ever sought to prove otherwise, they have suffered persecution after persecution. While there is an argument to be made that the majority is biased towards the truth -- meaning if something is factually accurate, a majority of people are likely to believe in it -- this argument has been undoubtedly tested by the age of information, as you indicated, in which millions of people have access to the near-entirety of human knowledge and still arrive at conclusions beside the one you yourself profess. This, rather regrettably, creates a dilemma I personally experience: if the majority is biased towards the truth, why don't they believe what I believe? There are only two answers to this question: either what I believe is not the truth, or majorities are not inclined to accept the truth. If it is the former, I am irrelevant -- possibly even detrimental to the majority -- and if it is the latter, majorities are imperfect and easily capable of wrongdoing. But this is the consequence of conflating the minority with the elite, which I did not intend to do. Perhaps my sentence structure was confusing. I did not mean that systems of justice protect the minority because they are both the elite, I mean that systems of justice are intended to protect the minority, regardless of class or stature -- that people are unequivocally equal. And it is _this_ notion that is elitist and uncommon. Yes, it is quite possible that a direct vote could be held to determine this quality, but what I am arguing is such a vote would have to elect people who do not necessarily rule in favor of the majority so as to be impartial. Thus, direct elections for judges creates a profound propensity for bias. Judges will either be replaced because they did not agree with popular consensus, or they will rule in such a manner where they believe the majority will allow them to keep their position. This is why the United States has judges appointed by elected representatives who are then overseen both by committee and by higher courts when cases are appealed to determine conflicts of interest, bias, or incorrect rulings. It's to distance judgeship from the democratic process as much as possible and subject justice to the highest quality control possible. And even this produces biased judges appointed for their opinions rather than their qualifications! Yes, your idea of "adequacy of arbitration" is a good one. But it rests on the fundamental assumption that generations of people with _or_ without legal education would uphold the same values and quality control ad infinitum. And no matter how you look at it, such a system would inevitably run into the same skepticism and criticism you harbor towards the status quo. No one would be able to object to their rulings because the appointment process would simply be rationalized and justified as the 'impartial assessment of the majority' instead of 'the impartial assessment of congress.' The argument "heck, might as well try it" is not especially persuasive in this regard, but I would be duly fascinated by any experiments that sought to demonstrably prove such a system would function. Furthermore, I meant precedent in terms of legal precedent, not, like, there having been similar systems in the past. I apologize for my previous sentence construction. I kinda tacked it on at the end there. Within legal systems that utilize common law, precedent refers to past decisions made given similar or identical circumstances. Often times rulings are made or cases are settled on the basis that when similar circumstances arose, a certain ruling was made. People can dispute this, but only by virtue of saying the circumstances are different or the precedent was improper at the time of ruling. When I referred to historical examples of justice systems, I was referring to the near-universal phenomenon that societies appoint people who are older, better educated, or more powerful to resolve disputes. The logic being that they are wiser than most and can "adequately" resolve disputes, either through some spiritual connection or through knowledge of a society's history or culture. Precedent is our modern manifestation of this phenomenon. Thank you for your reply. I do not discuss or argue about leftism enough. Internet's full of folk who are drop dead wrong about it xD

[@alexanderthegreat1356]

whynot-tomorrow? Dayum thassa big hole in future socialist society

[@Pahjx]

You drew the sickle wrong for the PRC. It should have a ball for a handle.

[@johnlamb95]

James Chumsa why should you have a ball at the bottom of the handle?

[@Kolokommouna]

@@johnlamb95 that is the CCP's emblem

[@noheroespublishing1907]

The future is waiting ☭

[@naitzab]

how could you make this video without mentioning china

[@wilhelmheinzerling5341]

Automated Market Socialism

[@peternyc]

Great video. The American people need to see and understand your work here. The music is toxic. Your voice, especially in combination with the music, is very difficult to understand. It would be great if you could re-do this video with the same transcript, but speaking more slowly and with intonation that conveys the all to important meaning of your words.

[@Nunocesarsa]

i dont think that computational system would have enough memory to compute what is needed at that time... plus things like NN were at their inception at the time. While today it is feasible (possibly), in the 50/60's it would be impossible to have a computational driven economy. Not to say the internet still had to be invented by then!

[@corvusprojects]

Aren't the voting consoles vulnerable to hacking though?

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

The current ones, yes. but if ATM's can be made hard to hack, why cannot voting machines?

[@apalumbo8585]

Normal voting is vulnerable to “manual” hacking too... The console would be much safer, especially with the implementation of blockchain

[@GREGORYABUTLER]

this idea seems to be based on the assumption that workers want to go to a whole lot of meetings, and spend a lot of their non working hours debating over policy and analyzing what the government is doing on their behalf There ARE people like that - usually retirees or middle class busybodies who don't have a family life - people like that exist now - in big cities like New York you have what are known as "the mayor of the block" - the person who's always minding other people's business around the community, and always calling the City on their neighbors for this or that alleged violation (as a rule these people are resented by their neighbors and exasperate the public employees who have to deal with their incessant inquiries) I think what most workers want is leaders who are trustworthy, who look out for their interests, and the right to vote those leaders out if they betray those interests We have to go to work - and after work, we want to spend time with family and friends, play with our pets and pursue our hobbies - we don't want to be all up in the government's business -we want a government we can trust that looks out for us this scheme ignores that class characteristic - who the hell wants to have to go to "the voting center" to vote on this or that policy every damned week? Somebody with no life who doesn't know how to mind their business, that's who.

[@rolandperlitz8508]

Yeah, I would like to have a middle ground between what I have now, 0 say in any government or work place decisions and the complete opposite of this, mainly the constant obligation of participating in all kinds of commitees.

[@halo436050]

The “insufficiencies” in the Soviet model led to mass famines, more than one. I’m not some liberal coming to hate on you but man the clear bias towards these systems is very apparent. Like u said the public has no say in the criminal justice system in the U.S is just wrong. For instance, in Texas the voters vote routinely on the state criminal justice system including laws, funds, and the prion conditions.

[@halo436050]

Also yeah the president does appoint some people without public approval, but the almost all those appointees have to be confirmed by the senate, which are all democratically elected into office.

[@redhippopotamus9144]

The problem with the USSR was that this council system wasn't implemented properly, not because of the system

[@jrpgenthusiast]

Hina ng boses mo boss

[@BinanceUSD]

I want no one person or group of people voting to rule my life. I'm out! Hell is a council of power lords

[@awkwardbound569]

What?

[@BinanceUSD]

@@awkwardbound569 power corrupts absolutely

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Factory Council votes for factory improvements of the modern time (1950s industrial tech). Factories gets expanded. Factories require more production because war. Factory quotas get harder. Once you fail quotas repeatedly keep recalling everyone knowledgable causing a stall to factory efforts. ????? Success.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Phase 2 of ?????success. People die in war. Need more factory maintenance. Factories rust. Factories get obsoleted by new tech. Factories get too expensive to replace, as we made a fuck ton of them and have less hands at the ready. ????????? Success.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Phase 3 of ? Success Fail to operate well because of outside forces which were pre-existing and could've been accounted for. Blame capitalism. ????? Success.

[@themarxistproject]

Congratulations, you've successfully tailored a scenario that you then refuted through...sarcasm? This is what we call a "straw man argument" and it's considered a logical fallacy. You give us no reason to believe that any of the events you have fabricated would be resolved the way you say they would. On the contrary, the "factory council" you create (which disappears after the first line?) conveniently makes constant strategical blunders. And it is somehow implied that the responsive capacity of a democratic workplace (socialism) is inferior to that of an authoritarian workplace (capitalism) because....well, because that is how it is.

[@SridipDhar_nocolorslost]

@@mimszanadunstedt441 You got the whole point wrong. Factories in socialism are based on need and not profit. Hence, you really concentrate on what really is needed and available for introduction instead of pushing innovations away just to keep the profit rolling. Take Apple iPhones for example. They are bringing hardware updates at really slow pace. With each iteration only few new features are coming to users making other features deliberately wait to generate profit in the next iterations. That would not be the case with socialism. Phones will and should have all the latest features as soon as they become available! And guess what? You can make use of the cool features for really really long time before another extensive set of new features arrive with another significant upgrade! Definitely there would be entrepreneurship in socialism as it retains market and makes efficient use of it to sense public demand and trend and also introduces new demands through innovation. For me socialism needs to be welcomed to make all benefits of science and research accessible to all (if we have cancer vaccine, still they can't be afforded by majority of the population worldwide under Capitalism, as it would choke profits of the existing market players......so to speak of electric cars. If Electric cars become affordable, where would the oil-giants go? Relinquish their privilege voluntarily even when they can make it stop?). Make progress speedier....Tesla's electric cars are so damn costly! Why not governments build mass-transports inspired by Tesla's innovations? I imagine that happening in socialist future because it truly inspires countries and people to make humanity reach the stars (aspire to become Type 1 Civilization on Kardashev Scale) !!!

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

@@SridipDhar_nocolorslost First its super expensive anyways for a reason (cancer cure idea). Second, I mean the USSR failed from 'for want of a nail'. You get quotas then people cutting corners to trade for vodka in the nail industry for example, then the nails were lower quality. Reason why you can't just boom 100,000 jobs for making some new railroad(fantasizing much?) is because it takes forever to make and you need to allocate the human resources from elsewhere. Theres a limitation to the size of the projects you can do and the projects are competing either democratically and/or through human resources. If jobs are forced based on needs alone though, thats not a utopia as people need their wants met as well to be psychologically well. If its slow at production of some good they need to negotiate a trade out of country for a different thing they need. Self sustenance is a wild dream. Not to mention people value the exotic, USSR was documented for example that they preferred foreign bras rather than soviet made. And they hired a capitalist to figure this issue out, it wasn't a matter of quality it was a matter of it being foreign. Then because the quality demands keep going up and production quality keeps going down, its a deteriorating system.

[@frankthorne11]

Will my rights be guaranteed?

[@jackvac1918]

Rights under modern liberal democratic states are codified in their constitutions, but constitutions are not set in stone and can be altered under certain circumstances e.g. a super-majority legislature passing a constitutional amendment. In democratic socialist societies the constitutions that outlines rights and governance will still be the subject of democratic decision, thus the rights enshrined in them are not really any less nor any more inherently protected than they are in a liberal democracy.

[@comradeboris167]

In Socialism the rights of the working class certainly will. On the other hand, the "rights" of the rich to exploit the less fortunate certainly wont. In Capitalism it's sadly the other way around.

[@4th19th2]

Cant wait to see it fail.

[@gofar5185]

the marxist project, in the end, ideology is not the primary basis of good governance... ideology is just guiding principles... communism/socialism is perfectly detailed by marx & engels on the basis of materialism... wherein, an idealist can pick distinct guiding principle for his distinct objective to achieve... the preferred principle becomes the foundation of a unified direction as lenin said... marx under socialism/communism principles CAN CATER ALL CLASSES OF SOCIETY if applied according to situations & circumstances... if we go to the democracy of greek philosophers... they didnt write a detailed guiding principles as marx did to communism/socialism... same with other ideologies, no distinct book of detailed principles for a teacher-follower to follow through... kindly see bodhidharma, boddhidharma compiled all the life and teachings of LORD BUDDHA... details of devoting self to buddhism are written detailedly for teacher-follower guiding principles... vast majority of asean people would search details of guiding principles for any knowledge before having interest about a knowledge... a china buddhist monk walked 2 years to india to see the original book of BUDDHISM IN SANSKRIT and he himself translated to china most common language... the presence of DETAILED BOOK IS ACCEPTED BY ORIENTAL PEOPLE... BUDDHISM CONFUCIANISM TAOISM and MARXISM... all has detailed books compared to other branches of knowledge like democracy, socrates dont have original detailed steps to be teacher-follower...

[@IAmNotABot9]

Your audio really sucks.

[@guidemeChrist]

Side question, why do you insist on saying "his or her" Seems kinda sus

[@themarxistproject]

Sus in what way?

[@Roust7]

The problem with dialectic materialism doesn’t necessarily but may likely more towards fascism. We saw before WWWII while there was wide socialist in Europe Fascist rose in Germany, Italy and Spain

[@bastiboyza]

The future of Socialism will not be Marxist.