31 Comments

  1. I'm pretty sure "from each according to his to each according to his need", didn't mean that everybody should live like they live at their parents' house. Great observation Of Basic marx philosophy from a guy who makes a living from getting brain damage.

  2. Marxism & all its modern derivatives are nothing more than a trick being played on the disenfranchised common ppl by the ruling elites.
    Their aim is to convince the common ppl that removing all those checks & balances placed on those in power is a good thing because "they hold up progress" while simultaneously convincing the common ppl to hand over their freedoms, power, wealth & influence to the same ruling elites for a "just & equitable redistribution" because certainly the ruling elites or really any group could be trusted while holding onto so much power & control of a nation, right? This is why EVERY Marxism based society becomes some form of highly oppressive authoritarian oligarchy without exception.

    Isn't it just a little bit strange how the Davos, WEF & other .1% ruling elites have shifted gears within a single generation from promoting forms of capitalism they can exploit to promoting Marxist principles of equity & wealth redistribution? They certainly aren't doing so out of the goodness of their heart lol. Their play is obvious.

  3. Lolol these two have never honestly engaged with Marx’s work, ever, aside from maybe watching Prager U vids or listening to Jordan Peterson (who’s also never read Marx) for 10 minutes. That’s an idiot’s version of “I did my research”. He says all of his discussions with Leftists devolve into pejoratives, then immediately precedes to misrepresent, condescend, and pathologize anyone who doesn’t share his, the presently dominant, worldview. Boy, I wonder why Leftists don’t take him seriously. I hope his ex gf is happy now. She’s better off without this douchebag.

  4. Yes, he's definitely "deep dive into Marxism" 🙄

    FYI:
    – Marxism is not based on equality of outcome
    – Marxism is not based on empathy
    – Communism is the result of economical development and automatisation (how people would pay for everything, if most of them are replaced by robots/AIs, so they cannot find jobs? How and why economy will develop and not dive into crisis, if most of people cannot afford a thing? To whom the results of production will be sold?)
    – Communism is about common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. Is this that hard to learn? Or this is so uncomfortable to bring up in discussion, that there is always lots of rhytorical "scarecrows" added to debunk?
    – Isn't it hypocrisy: to call out people to take every discussion personal and argue with persons instead of thesis; and at the very same time call out the opponents (imaginary) for infantility(imaginary, again) to prove the point that the thesis is wrong?
    – isn't it hypocrisy to criticize one thing for some point and pedestelize another thing for the very same point?
    – is it justice to appreciate people based on employment market prices (minus money business owners "worked" for) and not based on the actual worth of the results of their work? Remove a worker from a production chain – it breaks; remove the owner from the chair – work will still be done.

    Shiiiish! Less than 10 minutes, and so much nonsense.
    I regret that I spent time on this.

Leave a Reply

© 2024 FYTube Online - FYTube.Com

Partners: Omenirea.Ro , masini in rate