-
Thought I would do a video on Communism,
-
just because I've been talking about it a bunch
-
in the history videos, and I haven't given you
-
a good definition of what it means
-
or a good understanding of what it means.
-
To understand Communism,
-
let me just draw you a spectrum here.
-
So, I'm just gonna start with Capitialism.
-
This is really just gonna be an overview.
-
People can do a whole PhD thesis on this type of thing.
-
Capitalism and then I'll get a little bit more.
-
And then we can progress to Socialism.
-
And then we can go to Communism.
-
The modern versions of Communism are really kind of
-
the brainchild of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.
-
Karl Marx was a German philosopher in the 1800's
-
who in his communist manifesto and other writings,
-
kind of created
-
the philosophical underpinnings for Communism.
-
And Vladimir Lenin who led the Bolshevik revolution
-
and created essentially the Soviet Union.
-
He's the first person to
-
make some of Karl Marx's ideas more concrete.
-
And really every nation or every country which we view as communist
-
has really followed the pattern of Vladimir Lenin.
-
We'll talk about that in a second.
-
First let's talk about the philosophical differences between these things
-
and how you would move.
-
Karl Marx himself viewed Communism as kind of a progression
-
from Capitalism through Socialism to Communism.
-
So, what he saw in Capitalism
-
and at least this part of what he saw was right
-
You have private property, private ownership of land.
-
That is the main aspect of Capitalism.
-
This is the world that most of us live in today.
-
The problem that he saw with Capitalism is,
-
he thought, well look, you know
-
when you have private property,
-
the people who start accumulating some capital
-
and when we talk about capital, we can be talking about land
-
we can be talking about factories
-
we can be talking about any type of natural resources
-
So the people who start getting a little bit of them
-
Let me draw a little diagram here.
-
Let's say someone has a little bit of capital.
-
That capital could be a factory or it could be land.
-
Let me write capital. So let's just say it's land.
-
So someone starts to own a little bit of land
-
And he owns more than everyone else.
-
So you just have a bunch of other people
-
who don't own land, but they need it essentially.
-
Since this guy owns all the land
-
they got to work on this guy's land.
-
They have to work on this guy's land.
-
And from Karl Marx's point of view, he said look,
-
if all of these labourers who don't have as much capital,
-
this guy has this capital.
-
And so he can make these labourers work
-
for a very small wage. And so any excess profits
-
that come out from this arrangement,
-
the owner of the capital will be able to get it,
-
because these labourers won't be able to get their wages to go up,
-
because there's so much competition for them to work
-
on this guy's farm or to work on this guy's land.
-
He really didn't think to much about.
-
Maybe the competition could go another way.
-
Maybe you could have a reality where,
-
maybe you could have a reality eventually
-
you'd have a bunch of people with reasonable amount of capital.
-
And you'd have a bunch of laborers.
-
And the bunch of people would compete for the laborers.
-
Maybe the laborers could make their wages go up.
-
And they could eventually accumulate their own capital.
-
And they could eventually start their own small businesses.
-
He didn't really think about this reality too much over here.
-
He just saw this reality and
-
to his defense, and I don't want to get into the habit
-
of defending Karl Marx too much. To his defense,
-
this is what was happening in the late 1800's.
-
Especially, you know, we have the industrial revolution.
-
Even in the United States you did have kind of
-
Mark Twain called it the gilded age.
-
These industrialists who did accumulate huge amounts of capital
-
they really did have a lot of the leverage
-
relative to the laborers. And so Karl Marx says,
-
look, if the guy with all the capital has all the leverage
-
and this whole arrangement makes some profits,
-
he is going to be able to keep the profits
-
because he can keep all of these dudes' wages low.
-
So what is going to happen is the guy with the capital
-
is just going to end up with more capital.
-
He is going to end up with more capital.
-
And he is going to have even more leverage.
-
And he will be able to keep this people
-
on a kind of a basic wage
-
so that they can never acquire capital for themselves.
-
So, in Karl Marx's point of view, the natural progression
-
would be for these people to start organizing.
-
So these people maybe start organizing into unions.
-
So they could collectively tell the person who owns the land or the factory
-
"no, we're not going to work" or
-
"we're going to go on strikes unless you increase our wages"
-
or "unless you give us better working conditions".
-
So when you start talking about this unionization stuff,
-
you're starting to move into the direction of Socialism.
-
The other element of moving in the direction of Socialism
-
is that Karl Marx didn't like this kind of high concentration.
-
Socialists in general I should say, didn't like
-
this high concentration of wealth, that you have this reality of,
-
not only do you have these people who could accumulate
-
all of this wealth and maybe to some degree
-
they're able to accumulate it because they were innovative
-
or they were good managers of land, or whatever.
-
Although the Marxists don't give a lot of credit
-
to the owners of capital, they don't give a lot of credit to them.
-
Maybe they did have some skill in managing
-
some type of an operation.
-
But the other problem is that it gets handed over
-
it gets handed over to their offspring
-
So, private property you have this situation
-
where it just goes from, maybe, father to son
-
from parent to a child, so it's not even based
-
on any type of meritocracy.
-
It's really just based on this inherited wealth
-
and this is a problem, that you know,
-
definitely happened in Europe when you go back to the French Revolution,
-
you have generation after generation of nobility,
-
regardless of how incompetent each generation would be
-
they just had so much wealth
-
that they were essentially in control of everything.
-
And you had a bunch of people with no wealth
-
having to work for them.
-
And when you have that type of wealth disparity,
-
it does lead to a kind of revolution.
-
Another principle in moving into Socialist direction
-
is kind of a redistribution of wealth.
-
So let me write it over here. Redistribution.
-
Redistribution.
-
So, in Socialism you can still have private property
-
but the government takes a bigger role
-
Let me write this: larger government.
-
And one of the roles of the government is
-
to redistribute wealth and the government also
-
starts having control of the major factors of production.
-
So maybe the utilities, maybe some of the large factories
-
that do major things all of the sudden start to become
-
in the hands of the government or in the words of the Communists,
-
in the hands of the people and the redistribution is going on,
-
so, in theory, you don't have huge amounts of wealth
-
in the hands of a few people.
-
If you kind of take these ideas to their natural conclusion
-
you get to the theoretical Communist state.
-
And the theoretical Communist state is a classless society
-
and in Karl Marx's point of view,
-
and this is a little harder to imagine
-
a stateless society
-
So, in Capitalism you definitely have classes
-
you had the class that owns the capital
-
and then you had the labor class
-
and you had all of these divisions and
-
they are kind of diferent from each other
-
and he didn't really imagine a world
-
where labor maybe could get out of this
-
that they could get their own capital
-
maybe they could start their own business.
-
So he just saw this tension would eventually lead to Socialism
-
and eventually a classless society where you'd have a central,
-
well he didn't go to much into the details
-
you'd have kind of equal, everyone is society has ownership
-
over everything and society somehow figures out
-
where things should be allocated and all of the rest.
-
And it's all stateless. And that's even harder
-
to think about in a concrete fashion.
-
So that's Karl Marx's view of things.
-
But it never really became concrete
-
until Vladimir Lenin shows up.
-
So, the current version of Communism,
-
the current thing that most of us view as Communism
-
is sometimes viewed as Marxist-Leninist State
-
Leninist.
-
These are sometimes used interchangeably
-
Marxism is kind of the pure Utopian,
-
we're eventually going to get to a world where everyone is equal.
-
Everyone is doing exactly what they want.
-
There's an abundance of everything.
-
I guess to some degree it is kind of describing
-
what happens in Star Trek where
-
everyone can go to a replicator and get what they want.
-
And if you want to paint part of the day,
-
you can paint part of the day.
-
And you're not just a painter
-
you can also do whatever you want.
-
So it is this very Utopian thing.
-
Let me write that down
-
So Marxism, pure Marxism is kind of a Utopian society.
-
And just in case you don't know what Utopian means,
-
it's kind of a perfect society where you don't have classes.
-
Everyone is equal, everyone is leading
-
this kind of rich, diverse, fulfilling lives.
-
And Utopia is also kind of viewed as unrealistic
-
If you viewed it in the more negative light, it's like,
-
I don't know how we will ever be able to get there, who knows?
-
I don't want to be negative about it.
-
Maybe we'll get one day to a Utopian society.
-
But Leninist is kind of the more practical element of Communism.
-
Because, obviously after the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917,
-
in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union gets created.
-
They had to actually run a government.
-
They had to actually run a state
-
based on these ideas of Communism.
-
In a Leninist philosophy, and this is where it starts to
-
become in tension with the ideas of Democracy.
-
In a Leninist philosophy you need
-
this kind of a party system and he calls this Vanguard Party.
-
So the Vanguard is kind of the thing that is leading
-
that is leading the march.
-
So, this Vanguard Party that
-
kind of creates this constant state of revolution.
-
And its whole job is to guide society.
-
It's to kind of almost be the parent of society
-
and take it from Capitalism through Socialism
-
to this ideal state of Communism.
-
And it's one of those things where
-
the ideal state of Communism was never,
-
it's kind of hard to know when you get there
-
and so what happens in a Leninist state
-
is that this Vanguard Party, which is usually called
-
the Communist Party, is in a constant state of revolution
-
kind of saying we are sheperding the people
-
to some future state without a real clear definition
-
of what that future state is.
-
And so, when you talk about Marxist-Leninist
-
besides talking about what's happening
-
in the economic sphere, it's also talking about
-
this party system, this party system where
-
you really just have one dominant party
-
that it will hopefully act in the interest of the people.
-
So, one dominant Communist party
-
that acts in the interest of the people.
-
And obviously the negative here is, how do you know
-
that they are really acting in the interest of people?
-
How do you know that they are actually competent?
-
What means are there to do anything
-
if they are misallocating things?
-
If it is corrupt? If you only have a one party system...
-
And just to make it clear, you know,
-
The largest existing Communist state is
-
the People's Republic of China.
-
And although it's controlled by the Communist party
-
in economic terms it's really not that communist anymore.
-
So it can be confusing.
-
So what I want to do is draw a little bit of a spectrum.
-
In the vertical axes over here I want to put Democratic
-
Democratic. And up here I'll put Authoritarian
-
Authoritarian or Totalitarian. Let me put Totalitarian.
-
Well, I'll put Authoritarian.
-
I'll do another video on the difference.
-
Authoritarian and they're similar.
-
Totalitarian is more of an extreme form of Authoritarian
-
where the government controls everything
-
and you have a few people controling everything
-
it's very non-democratic
-
Authoritarian is kind of along those directions.
-
And then in this spectrum
-
We have the Capitalism, Socialism and Communism.
-
So the United States, I would put the United States
-
some place over here.
-
I would put the United States over here.
-
It has some small elements of Socialism.
-
You do have labor unions.
-
They don't control everything.
-
You also have people working outside of labor unions.
-
It does have some elements of redistribution.
-
There are inheritance taxes, there are...
-
I mean it's not an extreme form of redistribution.
-
You can still inherit private property.
-
You still have safety nets for people.
-
You have MediCare, MediCaid. You have welfare.
-
So there's some elements of Socialism
-
But it also has a very strong Capitalist history
-
private property, deep markets.
-
So I would stick to the United States over there.
-
I would put the USSR, not current Russia,
-
but the Soviet Union when it existed
-
I would put the Soviet Union right about...
-
I would put the Soviet Union right about there
-
So this was the U... I'd put the USSR right over there.
-
I'd put the current State of Russia actually...
-
I'd put the current State of Russia some place over here.
-
Because they actually have fewer safety nets and
-
they kind of have a more...their economy can kind of go crazier
-
and they actually have a bigger disparity in wealth
-
than a place like the United States
-
So this is.. This is current Russia
-
And probably the most interesting one here is
-
the People's Republic of China
-
the current People's Republic of China
-
which is at least on the surface a Communist state
-
but in some ways it's more Capitalist than the United States
-
in that they don't have strong wealth redistribution.
-
They don't have strong safety nets for people.
-
So, you could put some elements of China
-
over here, closer to the left... and they are
-
less democratic than either the US or even current Russia
-
although some people would call current Russia...
-
Well, I won't go too much into it
-
But current China, you could draw it here a little bit
-
So it could be even
-
a little bit more Capitalist than the United States.
-
Definitely they don't even have good labour laws
-
and all the rest. But in other ways you do have
-
state ownership of a lot.
-
And you do have State control of a lot.
-
So, in some ways they're kind of spanning
-
this whole range. So, this right over here is China.
-
And even thought it's called a Communist State,
-
in some ways, it's more Capitalist than
-
countries that are very proud of their Capitalism.
-
But in a lot of other ways, especially with
-
the government ownership and the government control of things
-
and this one dominant party. So, it's kind of Leninist
-
but with less of the Marxist going on.
-
So, in that way it's more in the Communist direction.
-
So, hopefully that clarifies
-
what can sometimes be a confusing topic.