Introduction
Hello. Let's talk about Communism.
//What? Bunch of Decision-makers ... Is c0mMuNiSm BaD? "Arise, ye workers from your slumbers..." The article contains a specific type of humor- please be warned of it//
Communism - from Latin, the expression meaning universal, common, instead, bleeding the ears of all living units of Eastern Europe, born mainly in the '60s-80s. Designed to testify to the direct democracy of society, a native of Swiss contemporary politics, but for the most - only the specter of nightmares; lack of food on the shelves, a testimony of hunger, totalitarianism or autocracy in the eyes of perverted revolutionaries who decided - as usual - to stop caring for the vox populi, and began to treat themselves as dei.
Is communism, then, just a wet dream of people who believe in any better tomorrow, which will improve the well-being of the present day? It's time to find out about it impartially. And for those who don't have time - the answer to the question for this article is in the last chapter of it. The verdict results from all the minutes that precede this answer, and if that is not enough, for the curious, the conclusion at the end should be exhaustive for them.
Still, this will not cause any shortcomings or any objections from people who have developed negative opinions about the allegedly known faces of communism. And certainly, the rightness for which they believe so, will certainly not be unfounded - we will also find out about this rightness in this material.
But let's look at the well-known paradigm that "human nature cannot be changed and therefore certain concepts do not work in this world" and consider; Is it even for the distant times, when people did not have money, they achieved nothing because there was no material encouragement? […] No.
People decided to organize themselves in a group and survive together, without any financial incentive, at the cost of survival. And of course, they cooperated, because they saw the value in themselves - one went to sew the other's clothes, and the other went hunting with the third for food for all three of them, etc. This does not change the issue that the service provider existed as a general organization of the group, i.e. in other words - primitive (then), a trade union, and not in the form of the rulers, because no one in power for these positions paid enough to make them feel dependent on their employees. The issue of profitability, and the value of human labor itself, has been overshadowed by monetary intentions. We'll come back to that later and focus on the "laid-back" Jew born in the German Confederation, who decided to start this whole topic and therefore to work.
Papa Marx and his local thoughts
1
Who was Karl Marx?
(Love, journalism, and death)
A long, long time ago, in the nineteenth century, Karl Marx was born in the magical Trier. Contrary to family interests, Karol was kicking into the core of the philosophy of contemporary thinkers, thereby letting him know that his father's offer to study law was far-reaching. Instead, the future far-reaching thinker dealt with analyzing Hegel along with entertaining and intoxicating into alcohol in college along with many other studies. After his father moved him to another university, everything became more serious for our hero. It was not because of his parent's actions, but because of the love-knowing of Jenny von Westphalen. Karol's further academic fate led him to obtain a doctorate in philosophy. In his youthful works, Marx was already sprouting his deliberations on weak materialism through and through with the human life of a worker who obtained little from his work. It cannot be denied that the later impact on Karol's work had an equally ironic aftertaste. For in spite of all rumors about the unemployment of this man, Marx, with the verve equal to other editors of the newspapers in which he worked, created various articles criticizing, then, the Prussian government for their actions. And although the unfounded criticism was not, as was the case with every government headed by the monarchy until the interwar period, it did not intend not to be offended. Unfortunately, the censorship of criticizing governments of all kinds - up to the point I have mentioned - was extremely common in Europe, which was a strong inflammatory link that led Karl Marx to his unemployment (with the collapse of government-censored newspapers), which was also led by a tendency to depression or ulcers on the body of the philosopher himself.
All skirmishes with the confederations of European conservative governments led, through almost the entire life of Charles, to migrate with his beloved and family to various countries. So Marx and his family went metaphorically banished to France. This country gave an opportunity to get acquainted with a slightly less dazzling, more prosperous, but sophisticated in terms of economic ideas, Engles. Thus, the first think-revolution duo was born and the communist ying-yang was complete. With the difference that the gentlemen liked each other more than they criticized, that they motivated each other by completing their knowledge where one was lacking. On the ideological level, of course, because they were dancing like a glove - and so much so that their letters of correspondence were so honest in their sworn friendship that Marx did not hide in details, for example, of an ulcer on his own penis, which had once been temporarily got.
However, if you think that this "rarefied gay romance" was the result of the work of these two, then you are wrong. While writing texts criticizing the problems of modern governments and the capitalists themselves was an amazing experience, considering how many things the gentlemen agreed with each other, nothing compared to the editorial staff of Marx's wife herself. It should be noted that, in fact, the duo of Marx and Engels was based on a trio - Jenny added to that. Where Karl lacked the breath to write even more texts or articles, Friedrich would enter, sign Marx's name, or edit his texts. Where, however, it was impossible to read Karl, there appeared Jenny, rewriting from cover to cover all the scraps of Marx, while making some stylistic corrections to his text. This triangle of love for common goals translated along with trouble.
Where, due to censorship or Marx's weak counting of living expenses, where, for example, there was no food for the family, letters asking for cash were sent to Engels. Accusations of a press crime in the form of boycotting the rule of European monarchs, opposing aristocratic regimes, or calling for strikes not only led to the escape of the Marx family from France to Belgium and then to the British Isles but also to creating a relationship with the goal of globalizing society in the face of the dissemination of law election of politicians by the citizens of a given country. One of these creations is the party's manifesto. London was a refuge for such rebels as Marx, Jenny, and Engels - the following years focused on the artistic work of Karl, which was to focus on all issues of economic problems arising from the system of work, which was created by long industrialization. Against the background of this, all the diesel England, full of people betrayed either by their homeland - i.e. its governments, or annexations or partitions and often exhausted working children from starvation or dying of diseases. Marx's children, unfortunately, shared this fate- but because of pregnancy complications or due to illness. Today, the fate of child labor in the factory has spread from Europe to Africa and Asia.
Be it the deaths of children, ulcers, mental problems, loans from Engels, and debts to doctors, the Marx family, sparing from luxuries and prone to errors in the logistics of managing its own expenses, burned like a melting candle in the graveyard of a shaky future. Characters 'happiness in Karol's short revolutions exploded like a firework misfire, but after decades of writing his artwork and both waiting, the occasion happened to form an International Workingmen's Association. The frustration of society was strong enough to make them feel hurt enough to finally unite against the oppression of the materialist system. And it was frustration that caused some confusion, one to be exact. By checking the fate of The International group, one could see how a certain anarchist pseudo-intellectual, jealous of its popularity, who had lost faith in the future, had ruined a rickety wooden house, like a wolf to pigs. Although Mikhail Bakunin did not raze the association to the ground himself, he contributed to its usurpation on a scale that echoed many years after Marx's death. Karol and Friedrich decided, due to the serious illness of the economic philosopher, to dissolve the International, all the more so as the half-burnt wooden house by Bakunin was divided into numerous camps, also by its rock.
Less than a year and a half after Jenny's death, Karol also died. As known in the world - but not in the country where he lived in old age - a social activist, revolutionary activist, fighting against oppressive authorities, who for days as much as he could criticize the exploitative system of the worker that many people accepted. A philosopher of economics, looking like a battered Santa Claus who was striving for a better tomorrow. With the entire trio, Engels soon disappeared from this world as well. Along with them, a certain conviction about the handicap of society towards change. The children of Marxes also did not receive grace from reality.
Eleanora, cheated by her husband, obtained from him offers straight from Romeo and Juliet that, as a penance of lamentation and inability to correct their mistake as a husband, let them both commit suicide. But only our Shakespearean Juliet drank poison-her would-be flirt-husband-Romeo, right after she killed herself, he left the house, not keeping pace with her in death. He lived to the end of his days as unacceptable for murder - inciting suicide, the culprit. Laura and her husband lived to old age and together they also underwent self-suicide euthanasia, having nothing to live
for. Only the character of Freddy Demuth - who was probably born out of an affair between the maid of the house and Charles, and who was adopted by Frederick, escaped the tragedy of the Marxes. Given the circumstances that Jenny knew about Freddy and wasn't angry with her maid, it's possible something must have happened between maybe two of these women ...? (Another Gay Marxist theory?)
The six children of Jenny and Karol, four of whom had died earlier, and two of the surviving children committed suicide. Their grandchildren, from Laura's side, set off into the world of post-war struggles of the 20th century, looking at the world through the eyes of gray idealists like their parents and grandparents ...
2
Luxembourg vs Lenin
While everyone would focus on the legendary mushroom, i.e. Ulyanov, hardly anyone paid attention to the eloquent woman who in the years to come would pay attention to actions that were suspicious and dangerous like Bakunin's. This woman was Rozalia Luxemburg, born in Zamość, the second Polish woman, and one of the first women in the world to obtain a PhD in economics. Like Marx, she criticized the governments, especially the Polish partitioners, published articles and created generally understood movements that wanted to break out of the chains of oppressive authorities. Contrary to the later Lenin, Luxemburg plunged into pacifism with the coming war in Europe, as did Marx, Engels and Jenny in their day. However, the cultural impact, including the perception of art and the overturning of sciences, resulted in a certain division which emerged with the emergence of the continuation of the International, its sequel; having the same goals - wanting to fight for the rights of employees. And as befits a sequel, it was a misfire, not a movie but a social one. Something that caused the frustration of society to arise again, leading to the formation of a second society, also resulted in a division within. The cultural industrialization that was that "something" had become so strong that it led to divisions in the Second International. However, the reason for this division was simple - to opt for
A. Pacifist non-interference and creating anti-war strikes.
B. Supporting one side or the other of the conflict, favoring the countries themselves.
Unfortunately, Option A was unattractively blunt for people who saw a chance to fight for their own state sovereignty, hence the majority chose Option B., thus creating a division into Alliance supporters and Covenant supporters. Our Luxembourg was in variant A. The result of these divisions was the fall of the International for the second time.
But let's take a step back and study- Wait, but where in International 2 were the followers of the usurper Bakunin, who stretched his elbows so much to get into the trough of Marx? Well, in Part 1 of the association, after the scandal, Bakunin was expelled from the group and his supporters split up with the collapse of the association. Thus, following this line of reasoning in two parts, nobody wanted to ask in. On the basis of the work of Marx - regarding how scolded elders, or ordinary people, as a society should rule the world - Bakunin's followers created their own idea. Syndicalism, because the idea was so-called, rejected the transitional process [i.e. Socialism - a process aimed at popularizing a given product (wealth), so that the employee at the same time becomes an employer for the production of his product and could take care of his products and then disseminate them globally, through the emancipation of workers and the logistics of automating production processes ultimately resulting in an excess of goods and services]* and focused on empowering workers to form professional groups, and then, through their strike movements, to lead to direct systemic change through the takeover of power by society. Of course, today de facto it also exists informally in the form of democratic states - we might say. The difference is that syndicalism focused on the very strength of society's rebellion and not on how to determine how the social structure would be managed, thereby also accepting the capitalist (implicitly, then as well as present) economic system more than the Engels-Marx view. Syndicalism was a colossus of wool on wooden matches - Bakunin, although he became a symbol of many supporters of his approach to the matter, was not as diligent as Marx with his theories, nor did he develop general respect of recognition among the people. Further consideration of syndicalism led to the creation of what is today called Anarcho-syndicalism, whose pupils were Georges Sorel and Fernand Pelloutier. After many years, this anarcho-syndicalism eventually germinated into what Marx and Engels had in mind from the beginning - and even further, somewhat more idealistically, where people would define career and jobs only by their own personal, not social, standards. A bit more futuristic and individualistic, that's what.
Going back to the division of the workers' association - the idealist who created themselves from it was, of course, Marxists, Bolsheviks and the mentioned Anarcho-syndicalists, democrats (modern, i.e. supporters of modern democratic countries, i.e. including the first modern democracy - the United States) seeking socialism (the so-called centrists) (DemSoc), or socialists striving for democracy (also modern) (that is, by definition, incidentally, not socialists xD, favoring with capitalism) (the so-called revisionists) (SocDem-ha tfu na them). The facades of these ideologists were visible from the beginning of the sequel to the International or any other party. The divisions as to the details were masked by the fight with the common enemy. Although Luxembourg belonged to the revisionist party, the SPD, an internal split led the association to support the war, and together those who were against decided to set up a movement known as the Spartacus League. You see, the scales of bitterness only come out when you feel a betrayal from your brother. Despite being part of the SPD, Luxembourg was as strongly criticized for favoring capitalism as Marx was. Our doctor, in the depths of all of this, was simply a Marxist who pursued activism in general, even belonging to the SPD, with whom she often argued. The Spartacus League has become a unanimous opposition to what the SPD has become, which already had a shaky history before. The president of this union was, among others, just the doctor. The uprising that took place in post-war Berlin in 1919 to eradicate the weeds of the overwhelming world ended with the end of the Spartacus League, with the torture and then the murder of Rose - as were many rebels. Interestingly, a Polish doctor of economics, a pacifist press activist, died at the hands of the SPD leaders. In other words, “Bernie Sanders killed Rosa Luxemburg.
Rose escaping from Bernie
Noam Chomsky 2024 we believe in you!
*According to Marx and Engels; of which the most important stage is the stage of emancipation and logistics.
Whenever we did not slander Bakunin, however, it had to be admitted that he had anticipated a course of action that could drastically delay the entire process of pursuing an altruistic society. That there will be those who, within the framework of the movements of people fighting for their rights, will be convinced that the accumulation of actions of employees will give them full power over what they want to change. Contributing to the same that they fought. Before we start with Stalin, however, let's deal with Ulyanov. Marxists have fallen, and the Marx vs. Bakunin ended in a victory for the latter ... or at least for the 20th century. Which does not change the fact that Ulyanovich himself, by popularizing himself called Lenin, pursued his own Marxist interpretation. And this interpretation, like a neat reader doing flips, made. There is no way he can be accused of not being committed to the matter, for hours during various actions at the courts as a result of the actions of Tsar Nicholas II, he wrote his scribble. The difference was that Mein Kampf was full of anti-Semitic emotions and racial hatred, while the Leninist texts were based on hatred of all people who constituted the broadly understood aristocracy. These scraps provided the basis for such an interpretation of Marx's works that it was not a continuation. The decision-making factors of the society were omitted and the focus was on the aggressive and bloody fight against the aristocracy. The creation of Bolshevism was based on the person of Lenin. The Bolsheviks present a gang of autocrats willing to make any kind of riot that will be effective for the overthrow of the rich. Ironically, the pacifism of Lenin and his later supporters against WWII bore signs from Vladimir himself. However, not washing their eyes - the Bolsheviks had no mercy when the topic concerned the monarchy of their state. And a double irony: the Bolsheviks, fighting the heirs of the wealthy people who are in power, were in fact autocratic themselves - children independent of wealth who want power and change the system.
Even in the times of the Second International, and before the WWII, the Bolsheviks rose up - as part of a counter to the idea of Martov Juli, who did not emphasize uniform leadership in the party. Martov and his supporters voted against Lenin's supporters. Despite Martov's victory, talks continued on the question of running the party in Russia. As a result, some of Martow's people finally resigned. This jumble caused Lenin to call Martov's supporters a minority, i.e. Mensheviks, and his majority, i.e. Bolsheviks. This relationship continued for less than two decades, leading either to the support of the Mensheviks of tsarism, and finally, when the aristocracy began to crush circuses strange in Russia, smaller factions and Mensheviks decided to support the Bolsheviks while Lenin was exiled to Petrograd. As the revolution progressed and it returned, led by the vigorous Bolsheviks, most of the Mensheviks fled to Georgia. For the Bolsheviks, like Rosa Luxemburg, by collaborating with Democratic Socialism, sought what Marx wanted human civilization to strive to. To Communism. [Communism - philosophical and economic ideology of a classless, moneyless and stateless society] The joke was that the Bolsheviks wanted to bypass the transition phase from capitalism to communism (socialism), just like the anarchists. The similarities stop there, because anarchists who are even more idealistic extremists than anarcho-syndicalists (which does not change that the Marxists were also extreme idealists for other social groups as well) because they saw nothing that would constitute the community of society, except liberation of them all from all institutions or other entities. The Bolsheviks did, according to Marx's theory, but they understood it quite differently. Therefore, we can already talk about Leninism, which created something completely different because it treated the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" literally, word by word, when Marx {by the way, he did not like any sphere of Russia's politics and activities, indeed! one might conclude that he was a Russophobe (in some way)} and Engels admitted years later that this work was not so certain, ie they matured and developed their views. The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, lived in a country where there was no capitalism, but only feudalism. This made them want to expedite the process in the fashion of their own radical interpretations of Marx's works.
The transitional phases, after feudalism, were replaced with something that was torn from the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" [Dictatorship of the proletariat - taking over the means of production through the socialist system in the form of reconciling the class of workers as their own employers as part of expanding collective democracy for working people]
and has been transformed into a strict transition phase named the same
{in this approach, DP meant taking over the means of production by centralizing them towards the authorities in the form of compulsory censorship of the employer's subject as part of the selective distribution of goods for the working people}, which temporarily deceptively offered communism, which only later brought shaky temporary effects through the fatal implementation of the transitional phases, and in basically their lack. Instead of real socialism and the communism that followed, the Bolsheviks achieved an oligarchy within capitalism. The October revolution, which started the era of the USSR, may not really have happened and lead to an improvement in the situation in the country. The truth is that Vladimir Ulyanov came to the point when tsarism was overthrown by the interim government in Russia (Временное правительство России) led by the leader Georgy Lvov. However, the pressure of a part of society to change was too great. The cycle of further civil war in Russia started {if you could call it that then you could? The All-Russian Union of Lands and Cities?} Was the result of the bloody removal of the provisional government (the aristocrat Lvov himself avoided this fate a few months before he escaped on time) by the Bolsheviks and the introduction of their autocratic version of their own vision of society, led by Ulyanov. Russian culture did not have much basis to create democratic societies, which resulted in the views of min. a person known and called Lenin… poor river. Despite getting rid of all rich people, the party under Ulyanov became a privileged group of people. Irony known for ages.
As for Luxembourg, she was often mixed with the mud because she was a woman tied by her hand about her own opinion, which she could only express in the treacherous SPD anyway. In relation to Włodzimierz she became a nemesis respected by him and vice versa. Although she was slandered as someone who departed from Marxism, and created his own current (Luxembourgism, otherwise known by some as Libertarian Marxism), although Lenin did exactly what the Bolsheviks accused Rose, she still stood on a pedestal and did her best, defending the theory Charles. The lack of favor from the Poles towards Rozalia resulted from the fact that the Bolsheviks and the Soviets won, and Luxembourg was not on the way to the Leninists. There was also her personal opinion that Poles would live better in socialist Germany than in an independent country with capitalism and the nobility at the forefront. “On the other hand, the Third Republic of Poland, established after the liquidation of the Jaruzelski regime, has a difficult relationship with communism. The majority of society looks at the entire Marxist ideology from the perspective of what the Soviets did to Poland throughout the 20th century. People cannot look at ideology in isolation from this traumatic image. This leads even to the fact that Poles support social-democratic postulates such as the Apartment + program promised in 2015 by the Eurosceptic and conservative party PiS (and still unrealized) while despising socialism and the broadly understood "communism" and "commies". In such a political climate, apart from a few, nobody appreciates Rosa Luxemburg's heritage.
Wait, why this cat is still miaowing?
**My evil plan was realized, Trotsky will take care of the rest ha-ha!**
3
USSR
After the mushroom died at the age of 38, it is time for someone to replace him. But let us not bully the autocrat. After all, his actions could have resulted in progressive necrosis and subsequent behavior that strengthened his cravings. This does not mean that we should legitimize him, but find an excuse for his behavior, which was hidden in the cholera states that preceded neurosis. Despite Włodzimierz treating Józef as a puppet for his own party purposes, and being often pissed off with his party ally, he did not see anything inconspicuous in the person whose psychosis had been sprouting for a long time. But this whole literary darkness was noticed by a certain Leon Bronstein (no, it is not about this Israeli sculptor). The party under Leninism in the USSR was fluid, and their management changed, although members usually did not leave it. And let us add that despite the fact that it was Vladimir that became the foundation of initiation for the Bolsheviks; Leninists, he himself did not create the Soviet Union. In addition to Kalinin, who would later be a symbol of the peasants for the state ruled by Joseph, which heard his orders under pressure, the party was made up of other autocrats. Leon Bronsztejn was the commissar of foreign affairs and opposed the commissar of nationality, Józef Dzhugashvili. Bronsztejn, better known as Lev Trotsky, was in fact a driving wheel in a practical context for a revolution, whereas Lenin was a wheel for a revolution in theory. Although both had a big impact on the history of the USSR, Włodzimierz as a minor activist and theorist of Bolshevism; gained fame mainly due to his later charisma and then the promotion of his image by Józef. Despite the cooperation of Włodzimierz and Lew, Józef, who was the secretary-general like an unnoticed broom mouse, or rather a rat on steroids, simply took power over a country whose society was caught on fire by his own regime. Some, of course, with pleasure. Lew, as an oppositionist to Józef's actions, first was in exile, and when the situation was even worse, he fled to Mexico and worked for the rest of his life, proving that the person who was called Stalin by the people had betrayed the party. Despite their oligarchy and the fact that Marx or Engels were not supporters of the party in their life, because it was associated with full circle and back to the pre-two-war monarchy, the party, at least in the circle of its mutual adoration, somehow functioned as a hermetic version of any parliament, with a micro-element of the republic. Papa Stalin, however, as an even more furious man, be it the centrist-refined Trotsky or the screaming neurotic Lenin, saw the party as totalus maximus. Totalus Maximus Stalinus. Big Brother. Totalitarianism.
Therefore, while in Mexico, Lew had sprouted his own vision of Bolshevism, that is Trotskyism, which detested Stalin's totalitarianism, which he perceived as "bureaucratic". An additional feature was that this idea, still derived from Bolshevism, understood social development as a process not through a global revolution, but as a gradual revolution (like dominoes that would cover the whole world), and the very process of proletarian dictatorship in the Leninist approach was to be a temporary process, not a permanent, which was a gigantic contradiction to what Stalin was trying to achieve - in Lev's opinion, to the opposite of what the Bolsheviks wanted to achieve. The party, in his view, and perhaps a little bit for Włodzimierz as well was a temporary procedure. Trotsky despised the materialism that the Soviet Union would later pursue, and certainly, his ideology was only a counter-answer to how Stalin ruled the state. After all, had it not been for him, Lew would have taken power in the country. In other words, Russian communism would be Leninism and Ukrainian-Russian communism would be Trotskyism; but this is just a national whim ... the country does not define an ideology, only a culture of upbringing - a concept of perceiving a given idea, at most.
And in general, social patterns and behavioral traits exhibited by Dzhugashvili from his youth determined his potential further behavior. The circumstances only reinforced these behaviors. The party monopoly became the tsar of absolutism. The point for such behavior is an interesting video from Radio Free Europe, financed by the USA (For Some Russians, Stalin 'Didn't Kill Enough People') - it shows us an inhabitant of the former USSR, who believes that in his opinion Stalin did not kill enough people, and it should because it led to what is happening now in the present Russian Federation. This is obviously absurd - placing eg homosexuals on one island would not make them die out because of the cultural factor, as in the case above. The answer to the entire communist conundrum as to whether or not communism was bad is in the form of a logical error -Survivorship Bias. And here is a small break - we are still going out of line; We assume that at the beginning of this essay there has never been communism in the world. The Survivorship Bias in short is a false argument in which we take selected factors to analyze the situation, but inadvertently omitted the issue from which this factor changes diametrically. An example of this phenomenon is taken from the user on the Polish discussion forum, Wykopie [in free translation]:
"Another well-known training example is the so-called "sugar-free pastry shop". There was a network of confectioneries that served cakes with lower sugar content. The financial results were so-so, so management commissioned customer satisfaction surveys. The company that did it diligently surveyed the customers of the confectionery. In each subsequent study, it turned out that the less sweet the cakes, the more they taste to customers, so they served less and less sweet ... but there were fewer and fewer customers. The confectionery chain went bankrupt, and the problem was precisely the survival error. Only people who bought their product were asked for their opinion, not those who gave up such services."
Just because one person liked it in the USSR does not mean that the USSR was cool, and vice versa. This also applies to each of you. Empirical experiences with statistically most countries are not reliable by the strong socio-cultural factor that defines parity for what you define as "freedom" as a single individual. The indicators of happy countries exist on the basis of people's expectations of the country they want to live in, not their expectations of the country in which they will feel differently. The average inhabitant of Asia will choose the factor of defining himself through the prism of society, the average inhabitant of Europe - through the prism of the individual [himself / his achievements]. Belief as to what you actually want in life is fluid based on your experiences. And that's no reason for fatalism. If you admire rich people, you admire those who became them, not those who fell on the last step and went bankrupt, e.g.
After Rose's death, the Spartacus League finally passed into the hands of International Number III, founded a few months after the October Revolution. The connections with I and II were such that they aimed at general social transformation, although the Third International, unfortunately already politicized by the Bolsheviks, was not what its prototype originally mentioned - the struggle of the proletariat, i.e. working people, and focused on the general promotion of the idea of unifying under the banner of the USSR party. The NKVD itself made a selection of who was actually a commander and who was not - and who was not, was liquidated ... (by the meaning of) "unfortunately" biologically {killed!}. The generally accepted modern symbol of communism was created by Yevgeny Kamzolkin in 1918, according to Bolshevik's need. Previously, the only symbol for Marx and Engels was the red flag for Socialism, and weird triangles like that - intended for International 1. So Internationale 3 was one great Soviet scam: c. The dictatorship during Stalinization was still going on and it was cold and deadly, unfortunately, although some Russians agreed to it, willingly devoting themselves to propaganda or actually believing in the rightness of Stalin's dictatorship. One of the interpretations of "The Master and Margarita" is to say that Stalin was Woland and collaborated with the artist, the Master, whom he spared while writing a story about the world. In general, Joseph in the USSR / Russia was perceived and perceived in a utilitarian way - a necessary evil that was supposed to make people understand what the good of a blah-blah-blah is, a bit like a nuclear bomb? And what about Trotsky? Trotsky, sitting in Mexico and writing slop (but mainly truthful slop) on Stalin, was hit in the head with an ice ax (a climbing-alpine pickaxe). Probably because of the swill. Yayks.
But what did you expect who would win? Mario or maybe some guy from KFC? But the point was that he slandered the anarchists [Cry more anarchists]. All Trotskyism fell into the currents of something that today has grown over the whole of Latin America and even further as the communist counterpart there. Leo created International Number 4, which was completely directed against Stalin and everything was against the policy of the USSR led by Stalin. There weren't that many differences between Leninism. RIP Trotsky.
Nothing lasts forever, the lion has fallen, the time has come for a gentleman with a thick mustache. The thaw came on the USSR and with it Biera-oh-Bieradoesn'texisit. Oh hello, Khrushchev. Khrushchev Nikita is the time of the Cold War, and therefore, despite the cold hand of this man, he was bribed by the USA and succumbed to the rhetoric of participating in a race in which he did not have to. Granted him some delays in this process, however, it still did not change the question that he succumbed to the rhetoric of the race of capitalism. Thus, the USSR changed industrialization, spending everything on a conflict with the USA.
Getting into space, while it was quick, the main problems started with the further depletion of resources (which barely managed to normalize after Stalin), due to pumping everything into a conflict. The capitalist countries changed the value of politics, whatever Khrushchev wanted to do with, the USSR. And such an erroneous entry into the corner lasted until the very end of the alleged Republic.
More and more deeper and further, through Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko to Gorbachev. American KGB spies salute, though at least the public was more liberated than previous regimes. Were it not for the party monopoly, the socialist system would probably be able to function in such a large area as the Soviet Union. Although other countries could also be asked about a disgraceful failure. Hey British Empire, how are your colonies!
Old days, old cold wars, but still strangely eternal among us. Glory for Arstotzka? Or what?
4
Propaganda
It's high time to settle the whole dog's dinner- the fact Nazis are communists (OOOOOOOOHHHH {enjoying liberals}), well, no {WHAAAT?} - do you remember how I mentioned syndicalists? Well, from this magical movement finally emerged a trend that drew its inspiration from all revolutionary movements that focused on the expansion of a single society: the nation. This trend was called national syndicalism called fascism, and although the shades of how it strives for solidarity and a fair society towards its own country were different, from radical nationalist gibberish to classic patriotism, fascism spread over the long domains of one country, whose authorities were taken over by a certain unpleasant you, Benito Makaronii, er, you mean Mussolini. All other historical complexities led to the radicalization of Nazism - if the radical form of communism was Bolshevism, the radical fascism was Nazism.
And of course, in advance most of us have a picture of fascism as something already grounded in radicalism, but ... from the perspective of someone who still doesn't know what the theories of Marx and Engels are about, Nazism is sort of communism, but without an economic theory and devoid of the pursuit of solidarity society in economic terms, and only in terms of the cultural identity of a given [chosen] society. So basically ... not communism xD. Because commune assumes in Marx's understanding that it is a cultural community for everyone (which does not constitute the basis for deliberations on his theory, and therefore there are no specific fragments about cultural communities). The horseshoe theory about which I am mentioning in half-lines will present the essence of the creation that communism and Nazism or fascism, in general, were the same. The problem is that, following this dualistic view, we could say that orange and lemon are the same things, ignoring their taste. Sure, they are fruits, but not the same. Likewise, an electric guitar is not a light bulb, although both use electricity in some way. Your mom is not your dad, bread is not the same as a jackhammer, and so on. But when you stick, it all comes down to this point of a single, right? Exactly, so next time think if such a generalization does not distort the context of meaning.
Perhaps, however, National Bolshevism, i.e. NazBol, would captivate you, but the very fact that a movement separate from Nazism and Bolshevism has accomplished this only proves that it does not constitute an aggregate affiliation or any correlation between Communism and Nazism. NazBol is a de facto pseudo-creation, just like National-Anarchism, made on the basis of its own interpretations and differences in definitions. Paradoxically, NaAn and NazBol are a manifestation of what, as a centrist who does not see the difference between Communism and Nazism, is a mirror of a man who rejects both system models, allowing himself to be stuck in his own status quo, which can be reduced to NazBol or NaAn. The same would be true of AnCom, but history comes full circle, and the issue of defining fragile concepts like these three is worth determining yourself politically through the aspect of your moral decisions. Worth considering, but not worth arguing about which of the three would be good - an unbiased conversation with a given opposition, yes. This way, we could easily change the issues of definition, where NazBol is the centrists, AnCom is the left and NaAn is the right. So the circle-loop theory works and doesn't work. Cool; but does that change something of your considerations, since side A turns out to be the same as side B and side C is really an embodiment of A2, thus automatically side A becomes embodiment B2 and side B becomes side C2?
You know, centrism and what we consider the extreme or its opposite is grounded in how we grew up as a society - the socio-cultural axis is shifting from point A to point B and to point C or in other directions. BUT, WE DEFINE OURSELVES WHAT THESE POINTS ARE. In such an approach, the horseshoe theory becomes (in itself) a paradox, a theory of a hook. We, as people, change.
But let's look at other problems, the USSR is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. PRoC {China allegedly (Republic of China / Taiwan over the top!} Is the People's Republic of China. North Korea / DPRK is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Now let us consider the names of each of these countries. The USSR is commonly defined as a communist state.
The PRoC is also treated in this way by the majority of people. And Koreaa…. Immediately the official name of North Korea has the Democratic People's Republic. So is it semi-communist or what? Most of us consider this country totalitarian, but the Soviet Union under Stalin did not change its name under the terror apparatus. Perhaps this is due to a desire to maintain socialist propaganda or whatever that is called? And since we all know about the hunger in Ukraine and other things, this trick does not work and that is why Kim Jong Un decided not to flaunt the name and stay with it, knowing that his country is known to be totalitarian anyway? And China, China is commies - but for some reason, they run a generally capitalist market, even though they have social elements sometimes more and sometimes less radicalized in terms of where the state income goes. Nobody will clearly call their country overtly totalitarian etc. but then why in DPRK this is all D-Democracy? Something is mixed up here. Could it be that democracy grew slowly in the 20th century? What if ... let me tell you that Korean society thinks there is no totalitarianism here and it's okay? There is a regime and their tongues are tight? But on what basis do you claim that you don't have yourself? Sure, censorship in Asia is still more prominent than in Western Civilization, but for outright slander is almost (probably) every country we have legal consequences anyway. Oh dear, what's that? What did these teenagers do in Kalisz (polish city)? Did they say something rude and vulgar about the president? And it is under the nose of the European Union - because we know that Poland is consumed by a fire of the possibility of speaking negatively about the hierarchy of a certain party ironically called "Law and Justice" (/mentioned PiS- literal transl. Prawo i Sprawiedliwość). Damn, and this is more than one case not only in the case of the president. The justification for this slander: Social frustration is caused by dissatisfaction with the actions of politicians. And when society feels powerless to change, either it falls into an acceptable stagnation or forces change by force {French Revolution what?}. So this seems to be non-fundamental harassment of a public figure responsible for these and those matters in the country. And there are penalties for that ... In a world that is not North Korea. So censorship is also a social aspect of what we accept as reprehensible and what not. And in Asia, the question of censorship in this respect has always been historically more severe for the average European from a modern perspective. So perhaps it is so with them. And the DPRK itself does not differ from a specific standard? Well, except maybe the generally accepted European standard? This country has become a synonym of contemporary totalitarianism, although not including a certain oligarchy that also prevails in the Russian Federation or Belarus, although mainly there under the form of an authoritarian dictatorship. Perhaps the Polish audience knows Emil Truszkowski (search for yourself, lazy men on the internet).
This traveler runs a journalistic blog and we could accuse him of a lot; that he is substituted and that something and that something and that has a Korean wife, so no wonder and blah, but as I admit - the mind trap of whether you will actually still perceive Korea as a prison and Korea as a less industrialized country is one thing. Emil prefers to show Korea in terms that the vast majority of us do not want to imagine - that there are some people there. The prison itself in Korea is not based on serving like rotting in prison, but on performing a given social work as a penance for his actions, and it seems to be more beneficial for society and for the prisoner, for whom the opportunity is to redeem his sins. And this is a certain dissonance because each of us has a different vision of prisoners. Some see it as right, others believe that they should stay in isolation like the injured in a psychiatric hospital, and others that they deserve ... an electric chair? You can see how complex and fairly low moral our priorities are - we believe that serving a prison full of other aggressors is better than some sort of compensation. And, now, the only compensation is, of course, a fine, because every money must match. AND WHO IS HERE A GRADUATE SEMITE, STUPID NAZIE, HUH?
Well, after all, you, as the listener or reader of a given medium, are always the one who is not responsible for anything. You only look at it and prefer to focus on the sufferings of others, even though they are often similar to those you have in your own life ...
As for our dystopian realities. As we can see in the pictures, just like any other system, this one requires stabilization. The USSR in general, despite its famine, it turned out to be easy and it grew, but then the Cold War came, so the USSR became a capitalist shell. But numbers are numbers. There are victims of hunger, but the lack of them is not taken into account. In the further part of the essay, I present a detailed table of the so-called victims of
alleged communism and victims of capitalism. And so, in the Polish People's Republic (PRL), there was still a great deal of post-Bolshevism-Stalinism until its very end, but people stood in line for bread. These queues were often very long because there were limited catering facilities, and food was delivered in bulk, but only once in a while. Incorrect distribution of the network resources that were supposed to provide food indicated a limited number of establishments and thus contributed to more queues. The number of stores in the PRL versus the number of stores in 3RoP is disproportionately huge. There was a shortage of goods in the Polish People's Republic - which was due to incorrect distribution and the same is true of Crap-italism, except that the mistake is that we have a gigantic growth of food that breaks down and is not consumed anyway. So we know that both systems had (and Capitalism has) the disadvantage of distributing a good - its production. The problem with queues for Capitalism is less apparent due to the logistics of managing groceries, the quantity of which… is not regulated, which in total also contributes to food overload. In both cases, however, there are queues of which in the Polish People's Republic you had no guarantee that you would get what you wanted, but you had a guarantee that you had the right to get it if only what you wanted. In Capitalism, meanwhile, for what you want you to have to ... pay.
And it's not only that you are standing in a line! - he is joking here, of course; but it is worth considering whether the payment for food is to be the result of only a guarantee that you will get it? Of which, of this commonly available to everyone is toxic and artificial food and ... unhealthy .... Check. Mate.
Previously, the food was also unhealthy, but there was no food that was strictly addictive, such as crisps, popcorn, Nutella, some tomatoes that are sprayed in a wrinkled way, imported from Brazil, or grown in poor conditions, etc.
Well, after all, if you like communism so much, maybe you will move to some communist country? The answer is simple: In fact, if you like capitalism so much, maybe you will move to some capitalist state? It would be best if in slums in Brazil :)) (Hypocrite).
5
Guevara, Sankara and others ...
Capitalism, as an economic system, eats away at social values like acid that cares for any wooden object. It is based on generating a profit, with no regulation of how the harvesting takes place. It was intriguing, therefore, how Bolshevism, as a tool of the beginning of the USSR, was becoming a seed of new ideas. The light scraps of European socialism from the 19th century that passed under the speeding car of Bolshevism and later totalitarianism formed into the rhetoric of traditional Chinese philosophy. A version of Asian modern socialism has emerged from all of this. If Marxism was modern European socialism, its over-interpretation was Bolshevism, then modern socialism for Asia, drawn from the modern fraction, was Maoism. It seems that Maoist China, which has somewhat superseded its socialist element, was still, as it is today, a kind of coalition of the third option with the simply Asian approach to how the individual is perceived in relation to society - as an extremely important person who has a diametrical influence, as like everyone in public participation. You could say that Asian culture is the second most socialist culture in the world. In the first place, of course, are pacifist cultures (in the Pacific Ocean), including Aborigines, the Innuits, or Native Americans (both North, Latin, and South American). It seems, then, that Mao Zedong simply introduced a cult of personality to the world that did not get rid of 100% of capitalism. Unfortunately, Bolshevism defended itself against the aggressors, thus allowing itself to be drawn into political games like a capitalist state defending its capital, which resulted in the USSR after the '40 years still maintaining certain censorship oppression, as long as it did not convince its people that capitalism wins by playing with dirty cards. However, the greatest oppression, worse than Stalin's totalitarianism, is the totalitarianism of Saloth Sar or otherwise known as Pol Pot. Cambodia experienced something that could be compared in words to communalism (an idea with communist elements, where theft is equal to property, and people would be able to brush their teeth with one toothbrush, only one), but with strong totalitarianism. So, Mao and Stalin could be astonished at this, although few people talk about Cambodia's failure due to its small territorial range. Although there is also no mention of the Belgian slave colonies. It is hard for us to talk about the definition of the word communist state since it was supposed to be a stateless society, so much easier about a capitalist state, since it concerns an economic system strictly in the form of a currency, therefore with state apparatus. Communism could have national institutions, but the membership of the economic apparatus would not have to be directed from above, but from below - through the choice of society, for example, by voting against the election of laws that shape, for example, the law. In such an approach, the communist state is a pure oxymoron. And the question is whether communist societies could be achieved - what the diggers know for sure, a group of American settlers in the 17th century who lived in a tax-free settlement, but until some landlord appeared what sold them to the government and there were both military complications and economical. Well, the point is, the government should function as a union and not like financed fascism. Who do you think could have supported Hitler when Germany was deprived of funding after WWII? The Bechstein's and the others like them surely have something to tell about it, heh. Diggers are not the only communist communities crushed by the inner world. Similar of them include, among others. Residents of Novorossiya ... or Rojava.
Wherever you looked, such things were strangled from above, as did Cubans by aristocrats who were later thankfully judged by Che Guevara. When they enslaved thousands of people, years later they received a bullet in the head, deserved for their dictatorship. And perhaps the rule of his or the slightly autocratic Fidel Castro was not the best, but it was definitely less oppressive than what it was before. The rest, as usual, became anti-communist propaganda led by the Americans. Oh, how so. Although there is a lot of evidence for this, this is overshadowed by supporters of capitalism, or the people themselves, who became alienated, for example, from the USSR. In social terms, Ernesto's actions did not differ from those of, for example, Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Junior. Of course, Guevara was a guerrilla fighter, but not a full pacifist, nor did he focus on fighting racism. Still, the socialist link was the main source of ignition in people like them. Mandela seems to have hinted at something about Ernesto, please like positive. Thomas Sankara also had something to do with neo-colonialism, and with a good reason for the rights of the population for the rights of the people for Burkina Fas as part of the opposition to racism and general xenophobia, and even more so, you would rebel as if you were used only for workers' purposes. It is not easy to reach utopia, it is not easy to get out of oppressive systems, but the fight against racism and anti-Semitism is only an example of how the paths to a peaceful future are created, going through all negative expectations. So don't accept suffering, don't be cynical - fix the world and start from scratch. Long live Upper Volta then! Vox Populi Vox Dei!
6
Vevebzuela
OhNOOOOOO is an elephant in the room What is he doing here?! Vuvuzela. Venebzubezabcsjsj. Admit it - now when you really try to prove that communism really existed, you give a randomly selected country that only fits your vision of a hungry country, right? Wherever the crisis is not, it is all caused by cultural Marxism and socialism, wherever it appeared, because in the end, this is how the European Union collapses, right? - from social! Watch out, magic: not every country fits within the framework of communism, and not everyone fits within the framework of capitalism. Some of them are the third option and some are something new, which is difficult to define because we judge only by the spectrum of current trends of nostalgia for tradition and not new things as really new. In the past, people believed that flies that hatch in a corpse are actually born from a corpse. You know, such intellectual flips - that a white man is a better intellectually man, instead of claiming that a white man is a man with a genetic complexion as a result of migration and settling in an area with colder temperatures and more cloudy sun.
And the same goes for the political spectrum. For others, democratic societies were a pigsty compared to others monarchist states. So what, capitalism has a Brazil that is better than Venezuela as communism does, right? Well, Venezuela pays for public programs with oil money, and when the price fell, the prices for funding for those programs fell. And the fall in price belongs to the capitalist concept. And if you want to say no, that doesn't really change anything. Because Venezuela becomes a country dependent on capitalist countries, and thus demand is dependent on capitalist countries, thus the fall of Venezuela depended on exports to foreign countries. You really don't get the feeling that Venezuela is just a bigger false lead for people who believe in capitalism like the crisis in Iraq, which we know where it started ...?
Perhaps if other countries responded to good and currency exchanges to regulate inflation in Venezuela, it would cause the situation in that country to regulate itself. Unfortunately, then the rest of the world would feel like Venezuelan hell, even though it would be freed from its burden. So far, this country has been left to the fate of worldwide economic martyrdom. Ah, if only Chavez did not use the economy for the autocracy of government in his country ... C’mon, where is the limit of this? I think in this capitalist Brazil or Mexico! Wait, but why leave so much, let's look at homelessness in the USA ... And you see in such arguments we usually forget about the scale of the country, so it's hard not to talk about hunger and great numbers in the USSR when it was one of the largest countries in the world. The size of the population can disturb us what damage the system can actually do. Now let's look at the US data (hunger example: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-25187-2_6). And now from the former so-called British Empire (hunger example: https://books.google.pl/books?hl=pl&lr=&id=NQF6WON4mKAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=great+hunger+in+ireland+how+many+how+many+died&ots=eGKfH50I1B&sig=cCu6UBmagJqMY7icIVoJgm7I-u4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=great%20hunger%20in%20ireland%20how%20many%20how%20many%20died&f=false) ... I think you already get what I'm talking about - shelters for the homeless may exist in countries such as the USA, but without allocating an apartment (In North Korea: Apartments are allocated if you would like to know).
Another case is the combination of technocracy with elements of the third option, i.e. a completely individualistic trend of the fourth option that followed the PRoC - on the one hand, we have elements similar to those in the European Union, on the other hand, we have autocratic aspirations straight from the USSR, and, however, the widespread distribution of expansion goods for employers in the form of a government with oppression of workers. The icing on the cake is one of the most stringent censorship in Asian culture (if not in the world) and the police state {Well, as we said - things like countries are viewed differently} {personally, however, I am of the opinion that it is quite a tough nut to crack, "duller in government terms" than the USSR or the USA}.
Sceneable> Vsauce (I still love you Micheal <3)
7
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
{Basically: To everyone according to their needs, from each according to their capabilities} In other words: https://youtu.be/rgiC8YfytDw (Socialism is when the government does things, and the more socialism, the more things it does, and when that's really a lot of things, this is communism) What does this dictum even mean? That dictum is, more or less, the same as the definition of socialism I just quoted. As usual, everything breaks down under socialism with the universally equal distribution of goods as means of production, that is, of what you produce, on the basis of [chronologically speaking]:
a) popularization of logistics and automation of production processes
b) alignments; emancipation of employees as creators of their own goods, both for others and for themselves (and not only for others as the current types of services)
c) equating the relationship between the employer and the employee.
Contemporary inequality is based on the fact that the automation of goods does not keep up with the demand for the product, so prices for a product are inflated, and instead of making the product available when its production is facilitated and widespread enough that everyone could have it, prefers to put the product on the market at an inflated price right away. Unfortunately, the ladder hierarchy functions here - top-down, the market model in corporate monopolies creates an emphasis on small monopolies (of the type, I don't know, did you publish: and printed a book lol?). the product as soon as possible and at an exorbitant price, although in fact, they do not keep up with its production so that their product like Iphone6 costs $ 1, which, for example, could be of equal value to a set of 20 felt-tip pens. That is why they create an artificial excessive value for themselves, pretending to be the injured because it is a new blah blah model, a new product and therefore expensive because it has cost a lot of work time. The time of work and the time of input into production does not mean that the necessary survival for man is priced at cruel sums. Here, of course, Iphone6 is just an example, and it is not some kind of need base for (survival), but since we create the rhetoric of a world in which access to information is to be universal, this iPhone is subconsciously for the masses need base it becomes (by economic manipulation to make it necessary, by the way) so let's not be hypocrites dear capitalists {Oh my, I forgot you are}. We are not talking about non-need-based products [a product of an unnecessary necessity (to survive)], because, for example, the construction of a new type of Alla Stradivarius violin, which you will price at $ 12,000, should never chase you, especially if it is intended only for the "elite" "Collectables. However, the value of money plays an important role here, but more on that in the next chapter. Not only was the quotation about socialism distorted: Religion is opium for the masses. "Religion is the opium of the people." is not such an atheistic metaphor for Karl Marx - this quote is mainly intended to present religion as an idea that is supposed to give hope to disadvantaged people, who often saw more meaning in death and alleged going to heaven than in miserable life in the granaries of foul and hard-working Europe in the 19th century. People felt economic and cultural oppression, and religion was to be both its justification and an escape. Another important point is what Marx and Engels, and Marxists in general, understand as private property, so to make things easier, the two journalists decided to separate private property from personal property:
{Private property - an entity that belongs to you and exists to give you a profit; has the status of an exchange trade relationship; selling o buying
Personal property - an entity that belongs to you and is not subject to a barter relationship; sell or buy until you recognize that it obtained this status}
What is proprietary to capitalism. privy., under socialism it belongs to society/workers, which eliminates exploitation. Personal property should generally have such an unchanging status, but to facilitate theory for practice, I have provided a practical definition. In other words, you can still trade entities (things, etc.), but without creating capital for people who have devoted the last time to a given job and gain the most, as they do now.
Do you remember when I mentioned human nature? - Well, basically people before slavery (chieftainship), then feudalism (monarchy) and capitalism (republic), lived freely in communes; in organized villages and civilizations. This is what we call primitive communism, which is where people grew up gathering and gathering food in general in order to survive together. And before you say that communism wants to take us back to prehistory - well, in fact, if it hurts you so much ... In fact, the concept of a return to prehistory is more of communalism in which there is more emphasis on leadership, where the difference between theft and possession of the property is no different, and the concept itself dates back to the feudalistic medieval times. Something like that was achieved by the aforementioned Pol Pot totalitarianism, led by communalism. Meanwhile, communism could at most slow down the process of progress and not make people feel mentally exhausted by their work and allow themselves a moment of break, unlike capitalism.
Under socialism (and therefore under a communist regime), no one earns equal income, but everyone has equal [means of production]. This is the most important of all of this. In other words, wages, depending on who you are, may have the right to differ, but access to the good, as well as benefits or what the worker produces, has full access like any other person under socialism. When it comes to innovations, incidentally, by the distribution of the means of production, the USSR was ultimately the first country to launch a man into space (No Stalin, he was launched in the head). Under communism, the concept of firing people off their jobs for being insufficient simply does not exist - instead, there is a reduction in working hours and a raise. When it comes to the automation of goods, the employer dismisses the worker getting shit about worker life, instead of doing what communism assumes. {Elon Musk weird noises}. Capitalism or communism don't make things because these things are made by workers. It is the system that imposes value on whoever has control over the ownership of the means of production. For many of you, the Star Wars prequels and the original ones could be something much different from what their main creator assumed: a critique of the free market in the context of the capitalist system (https://youtu.be/Ps8DDjjSRxQ).
Moreover, the concealment of information by companies, enterprises, and corporations that global warming did not exist was propagated in the '80s like Stalin in the '40s (example: https://exxonknew.org/). Also, not to mention the widespread deliberate aging of products (examples: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/41076348/English103_Final-with-cover-page-v2.pdfExpires=1640479055&Signature=YUa5d45SXIBioyTGTrPMo3PxuKOslaI0BXxIAdpoia~NPdveTXeV8~HMc1R5hLCoZ12b2hbFkrj57DT2Ja5zIzTaCZACAtAheoZ5OfBfSeYfmWpP7XBc9f1CxfRO7VUuq-XcJ01HeiPdwXoobU5rLXpbB2RNRF1ZHcHTQ1rGaW3ChSWOGr98gwia93-eSlDMDQeCYyo1hPJoDidzZ~DtCjL0QWFpqWGKHKWPfvFWh6tf8-poLaEpDMKs8IOQCifLXSwAw1L9jr7C7yhSYPirp4I~f-fOA0fv4255jWzm2fO8d1SYa0PqG9ydS2LEc2fBwjBduLf2Oelg72ZcCfbuYg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA) (http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/2062/).
Meanwhile, one of the concepts of social is the universally free health care - in Poland we may see negative symptoms due to the incorrect distribution of resources by the current ruling party, but the Scandinavian countries in the European Union, whose social status is developed, is at a pretty good level for now. Instead, let's focus on the popular argument that you cannot criticize the system you live in. You can't write "I hate capitalism." via Iphone7 only because it was created in the capitalist system. This line of reasoning tells us that you cannot criticize anything you witness, such as you have a brother who beats your parents, so you cannot stand up to him because you are beaten by him and you live in the same family. Another example is a slave who expresses his opposition and says that he does not want to live as a slave, to which his ruler would reply, "But I am the one who provides you with food, so you cannot renounce your social status!" In this case, also other slaves tell him what to think about his equal slave fate so that he would share their fate. Well," talk to the post and the post preserve like an ass" - even if in this context you lived somewhere away from civilization among the trees, they would shout at you that you are a social parasite because you do not work and live on a pension because somehow or you pay off some of your capital taxes or you are exempt from tax for some reason.
So then why is there so much anti-communist propaganda type? In addition to the historical connotation, I have explained between the turbulent periods of willingness to change and not change in the middle of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is hardly surprising that the advisor of the former US president, Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzeziński founded the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation all over the world. This historical mess, at times, merged Marx with Stalin. And I'm not saying that it blows up, but demands do happen, unfortunately. Communism is generally a threat to private owners, those who want to get rich from you. And it is true that, due to social programs and the popularization of the production of goods, this pathology, which was commonly applied to people in the nineteenth century, disappeared, it is still alive today. Despite numerous contracts, employers on the market are greedy and do not feel obligated to the employee or the client himself. They create a Siege mentality and an eternally aggrieved investor who avoids, through his half-imaginary harm, empathy towards the employee. However, not every employer is like that, there are those who do not see it as a strict investment relationship and understand the need. A group of radicals, however, only by their monopolization, fuels a sense of loss towards lesser employers, so that they impose a (usually legal) sanction against the worker and perceive their workers as parasites. This only leads to workers also starting to look at their employer as an exploiter-boar. This leads to a fire of the conflict, resulting in an involuntary demand {parity/demand for quantity} for job seeking during the supply control of {quantity generation} by a group of radical boar/exploiter employers in the capitalist system, and generating profit for them, thus controlling boundless economic sentiment as to whether or not there will be a rebellion in society. Because sometimes such a rebellion or money will be very useful for boars, or not. Nevertheless, such tendencies are random, and when I said "boundless sentiment" I meant that they were taking advantage of the situation to assess their own position, whether or not they provoked minor employers to radicalize themselves directly (creating a false demand for employees in its subsidiaries in order to increase efficiency and pretending to be a crisis of its corporation) (which reflects on smaller ordinary companies, companies, employee plants) or indirectly (e.g. consciously, e.g. increasing the requirements for getting into the boar's company).
Someone would now ask, "But what's the difference between a boar [a capitalist pig] and a revolting worker back then, since they both have Siege mentality for justified reasons?" (i.e. Does that not make a capitalist an equal to a communist?) Well, the employer became the employer by choice, and the employee could either have limited opportunities to become an employer and it did not pay off or was unable to become one. Well, unless they are alone, but then we are not talking about a boar, but about an honest, ordinary employer. Boar has a demand for a worker to support himself, and a worker has an itch for a boar to support himself. It's just that a boar has more possibilities since they are able to keep both a workplace for other people and themselves lol. Not to mention, they don't usually create anything by themselves. Hegel's romantic relationship, in fact, a slave without a Lord does not exist as a Lord without a slave. By breaking this relationship, we can change it. Usually, when we liquidate, we simply turn it into a friend-friend relationship. Friends with benefits. Or something. Not surprisingly, then, for-profit, anti-communist propaganda similar to religious pseudo-doctrines is doing well incorporate times. We saw a caricature of these events in the form of the Cold War and the fight against communism {de facto Bolshevism-capitalism} in the USA.
Typical ocean-society problems
8
Economics Schools
Let's start with what is work alienation? (Work alienation- layout of the distribution of a good (product) in favor of automation, development, and progress, eliminating the input of labor in production by a single employee to catch up with the demand for a product in order to get rich from that product). The development and progress of mankind take place through alienation, thus the worker loses himself in favor of service to another person, an employer, or a proletarian who is also an employee of another good. Alienation communicates your own self-worth with what you have done in this world. The trend of general nihilism, widening mental disorders develops from year to year because people realize that their lives are becoming meaningless, because they either lack the strength to get better conditions and so difficult to obstruct the social ladder, to their own life or as settled, they lose themselves in the process of alienation or the feeling that they have achieved nothing because they have become the mass of the cog of the capitalist market. Civilization, therefore, is not a product of community but of compulsion towards it. And in fact, it is easier for us to stay in it, belong to it, and accept the status quo slightly better than the old slavery than to actually isolate ourselves from it, living somewhere in the forest in the wild and producing natural food as one beekeeper, a hunter. I omit vegan ethics and morality, but the current knowledge about obtaining ingredients without killing animals tries to eliminate this moral problem and live in more harmony with nature than ever. And it's probably better than eating animal flesh specially prepared in artificial factories (I think you're exaggerating Topigs Norsvin). So our goal is that if primitive prehistoric communism did exist, it must have existed a long time ago given the amount of conflict on the axis of human history. Today, alienation is somewhat less on the scale of Western Civilization, but not so much compared to the rest of the world. After all, we use common goods, create and discuss pop culture, create things similar to mainstream fashionable things in order to become mainstream ourselves, and we go in this direction. In view of this, could communism also be accused of alienation? Given that the same goods are widely available, and by ruling out the notion of bringing items to market too early before it becomes widely available then… the answer is simply no. Examples of alienation and the logical error mentioned earlier include Elon Musk, Bobby Kotick, John Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and many others - these are numerous examples of people who capitalize on other people's capital. The biggest objection to them is not that they have this capital, but how they manage it - for their own purposes: Musk may and ambitiously look at the futuristic vision of reality, he cannot be denied this, but he leaves behind global warming, misdistribution of rubbish, oppression, children in Bangladesh and, above all, a country in which he himself lives with homelessness, cultural inequalities, legal corruption and corporate commercialization of goods. Where is his benevolence to Earth? Apparently, he prefers to look proudly at a child who is so far planned to be conceived (Mars) than at a child who needs psychiatric help (Earth). Unfortunately, we still live in slave times
"How is that?" Asked the young apprentice of his master "I certainly do not live in them anymore."
"Oh yes, and who made your clothes?" Asked the master.
(it is worth looking at the labels to check where these clothes are made and what company supplies them and where they are sourced from). However, it is not your fault that you work in a corporation, but you must be aware that you are also responsible for the cog in the machine, which may fall apart without the cog. Being a centrist only hurts - and if you want a clear conscience - choose a job that generates fewer problems than larger ones. Do not be desperate and try to be moderate every time - universal education should lead us to become more and more aware of our individual identity against the background of society and what contribution I have to it. Otherwise, no one really protects you from going to the forest, and you will be able to stay on the daily norm, the fact that you are used to bourgeois luxury is your choice - the choice to realize whether you really need something or maybe it is a false whim, the drug of wanting to become a false rich man, even though you really know that you are not. Profit becomes, in the sense, I said, just a steal from your talent/hobby/passion.
The number of crashes on Wall Street, of which this global one explodes every decade, only shows us the impermanence of such a system, the consequences of which are spreading to other areas of our society. So just as we had scarcity crises before, today we have abundance crises. The factories on this planet are so efficient that we are able to offer each of us a two-story single-family house and a car. If you do not believe it, I let myself calculate it, taking into account the currency value of the pound, dollar, and euro (Well, maybe not for everyone, but I shoot that it will be enough for ~ 7.5 billion (sorry the remaining 0.4 billion: c)).
Therefore, unemployment could become a positive effect, and thus someone would say that people would be too lazy because one day the resources for the automation of goods will run out. But think about what is happening nowadays - if you don't work then you just don't have things, so work is a compulsion after all - and it would be the same in times when there would be a shortage of new goods and a stagnation in our, let's say, utopia. The difference is that the things necessary for your survival would be provided, but if you really wanted something more and to stay on the social norm, you would be required to do what you are now - just work. The difference, then, is the only one, but it radically changes - that capitalism generates unnecessary harm and suffering where it would not have to be in the model of communism on the socialist market (because that's what we call it then). The capitalist market forces us to take steps that distort our emotions, as exemplified by the numerous marriages concluded throughout the monarchy (feudalistic) and republics (capitalist) for strictly economic purposes, usually putting the emotion of love aside. Of course, the generally accepted attitude of biological acquisition of good from relatives has been known among animals or people themselves for years, but we are talking about the issue of the institution itself (about these and other economic problems here https://youtu.be/fSQgCy_iIcc). Try not to be a centrist. Extremes can be extremely dangerous in various ways. Nevertheless, in our (such economic, capitalist rhetoric) approach, centrism is the extreme of indifference.
Look at this temple. It is old and a testament to its historicity, but the temple as a social sense of identity will soon collapse, and the status quo with it. The rapid collapse of this temple would lead to a strike that would not be so gentle if only the restoration had started prematurely before the columns were felt to tremble. Extreme 1 will tell you that it is worth not to change anything in the temple because it is a cultural heritage and only the spirits of ancestors, nostalgia will decide on its own about its transformation, so they will defend the temple until the end against any renovation. Extremity 2 will tell you that it is worth revising the temples and possibly demolishing some of its pieces since these are to burden the rest of the structure, but something new in its place, and keep the original pieces in a safe place as a cultural asset. If, however, the temple is in a very critical condition, it is better to actually demolish it and build something that will better serve the general public. At some point, number 3 will come up to you {oh my, it's a boar!} And will present you with a completely different extreme - it is not better to walk around the temple, exchange what is valuable in it for such good that will give you and him as an investor profit and leave the rest as it is a shelter for all of us from the rain? Extremity 3, of course, will never tell you that the good you exchange will give him a double profit by selling the replaced pieces and so extremes 1 would put them back somewhere in the temple, and you, like a fool, will again naively look at what is inside. change to sell, giving away the greater profit of the extremes 3, forgetting that the whole thing is collapsing, and in the meantime, three behind the temple, so that no one will notice, is building an exclusive shelter with a swimming pool, and everything he likes. Extremity 1 has one sense of fear that they will have to leave the temples as it collapses, either because of the Extremity 2 strikes or the mere fact that the temple itself is old and to realize that it is possible to live in the rain, even for a moment only so that something more solid could be built.
Isn't it funny that you have to pay for your education? Maybe not the initial one, but then, in order to statistically gain a better job, how much money do you have to spend directly or indirectly. These and other disadvantages can be regulated by fiscal policy. We know well that inflation is a common economic phenomenon that has the right to happen, and the norm is it, but if we want to avoid the Venezuela case, it is enough for the proper management of state spending to be dictated by fiscal policy in favor of what is to be excluded and what is not. Examples of countries dealing with something like this exist. Nevertheless, they are not a factor of 100% right, we would again come back to capitalism and its criticism, which generate such problems. GDP is not an indication of the welfare of the state (example: https://hbr.org/2019/10/gdp-is-not-a-measure-of-human-well-being).
Other types of criticism of what I am talking about can be found in publications such as "The People's Republic of Walmart". The summary is generally that most technological innovations are strictly connected with the involvement of distribution not of the individual but of the state (as the dissemination of economic and social rights (emancipation) of the worker) in and of itself. Thus, the Third Option has value only through its socialist elements which it uses, rather than if it is capitalist (Capitalism assumes that supply is to generate production, in turn, supply stimulates production, and demand will generate itself). Next time we will be satisfied with the Austrian school of economics, and it is worth looking at what D. Wolff has to say here. Capitalism simply does not rationalize production as part of the pursuit of ... the eternal creation of equally utopian production goals, which, incidentally, are accused of ... communism xD.
Multiverse of capitalism is endless possibility
of running for the money
9
Conclusion: "Dying" of hunger
The ladder of capitalism is climbing all the time; the ladder grows: the greater the industrialization (in the context of popularization in terms of distribution) of goods, the less autocracy of entities. If people cannot read, they work in the field or in a factory, then those who read are in the minority - they are rare and constitute a supply of capitalism, uneducated workers are in demand because there are always more of them. If everyone can read - no one will see anything special in it, thus the rank of government officials, such as bankers, will fall to the value of an employee. For a capitalist, the education system was only a value that increased his capital - more applicants than places for a possible position. Supply is- there is profit. So what is demand in these new values? Another version of the form of education - for example, a nuclear physicist, biotechnology engineer, increasing profit for the capitalist - and not for the employee who has to wait 100 times longer than his employer for any valuable entity. Although the ladder of capitalism leads to people gaining more, their position is still the same at the global level. Sure, in feudalism it was definitely more difficult to emerge from poverty to riches. However, we must take into account the fact that today we have all become bourgeoisie in such a sense that we do not feel critical situations because these have been overshadowed by the general globalization of materialistic behavior (the amount of things in your home usually outweighs the suffering of hunger, cold or debt). Despite this, the public debt in the world is growing and not decreasing in any way, it is only frozen in central or entity (central) banks. You are still unable to afford many things as a bourgeoisie - you are still working against the progressive automation of goods. The answer to why this is so is simple - you are still in the middle class despite broadened social standards. The poor, even though they are better poor than those in the 19th century, are still poor and 3% of the rich are still rich. In a society that cares about common interests, a wooden ladder would be raised horizontally at most, and it would be built like an ark to build a ship for everyone, avoiding a flood ("poverty of the highest category"). The ladder of capitalism is vertical and saves those at the top and sometimes those in the middle because you have to take into account that the water level (stock market crashes (in a global economic context)) is rising and reaching those in the middle.
The problem, then, is that inculcating such doctrines makes people, incidentally, not not like (hate, etc.) communism, but that our perception of life outside of capitalism becomes more difficult for us to imagine. Really, does every animal or plant in this world other than man create (some kind of) a labor market for others? You will say yes, but I'll just tell you that you are confusing the concept with an ecosystem of natural selection. Typically, a species of an organism works together to form an organized community. Something like Octopolis. Octopuses that acted like criminals, say, were chased out of the city for insubordination in their kind of proto-morality. Therefore, we can say whether a predator is able to do something similar to aquatic animals, or maybe we are only doomed to self-destruction because of our self-aggression, or to ourselves or to our relatives? If we are able to evolve into a system like this, despite the subconscious traits dictated by selfish whims that ultimately lead to altruistic behavior, such as saving someone's life just because you were taught this way young, then your chance increases. Otherwise, whether we would have died from an asteroid or atomic bombs, our decisions were determined by the fact that we are still alive. War and aggression lead to moral degradation as opposed to friendship and cooperation (my little pony or something). If the weaker ones really die, by natural selection through the choices of more valiant societies and the so-called "Stronger" (at least physically stronger because morally they are rather weak xD), it seems that on Earth, it seems that either whales or dolphins or lions or other felids should "rule" (black syndicalist cat snarling). So far, by investing in curiosity and imagination, people have liked to put themselves in this position, but what would you be if it were not for the influence of dozens of people you have come across in your life, whether it is episodic, long-term, via the Internet or at the city hall?
All of this is a systemic concept of how to actually believe and if we want to keep it as the status quo at the expense of the people. Surely it pays off to eliminate people who, like you, have access to this or that or not? If you hold onto it so much, then maybe you have actually fallen as low as the war criminals? Work is not sacred - it is high time that Passion itself triumphed in what we want to develop us, rather than what develops our material needs (Jesus, the first communist, an interesting film by the way!) {https://youtu.be/QuaVeixiVLc-).
This article is not a fight for conviction, it never was. It was only meant to make you aware of how much we are doing in accepting such evil. It's not over yet, we are on the right track. It certainly is better than it used to be, many of us do not have slave chains on us, nor do we have a specific Lord. However, we still have slightly different roles. This does not mean burning the stage, but it is high time to build a home for all of us instead of a theater for onlookers and actors with no choice. For now, we remain these actors, but we hope that the curtain will eventually be torn by us. The world does not end with the abolition of slavery, racism, women's emancipation, or anti-Semitism, sexual revolutions- these are only an expression of what it is all about. Nothing starts with a yes, everything has a beginning. So let yourself break free from the shackles, theater, or temple, and let's start building a world in which it will be easier for us all, not just a few people ...
Bibliography: For Introduction:
Human Nature;
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204528204577011681658907746
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264789677_The_changing_nature_of_human_nature
https://books.google.pl/books?hl=pl&lr=&id=Q-_cBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=human+nature&ots=0vY3xq4f8U&sig=6NY8t9IOET8QlPx_lV8kVUkx3eY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=human%20nature&f=false
For Chapter 1:
„Karl Marx” by Francis Wheen
„Rethinking Marxism: Struggles in Marxist Theory : Essays for Harry Magdoff & Paul Sweezy” By Stephen A. Resnick, Richard D. Wolff
http://drdeereallifesuperheroes.blogspot.com/2019/11/putative-son-of-karl-marx-fredrick.html
https://muse.jhu.edu/book/31171
For Chapter 2:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rosa-Luxemburg
„The Letters of Rosa Luxemburg” (;by Rosa Luxemburg) Edited by Georg Adler, Peter Hudis, and Annelies Laschitza, Translated by George Shriver
„Rosa Luxemburg - Ein Leben wider die Barbarei - Mit bebildertem Stadtrundgang” by Bruno Kern
„History of the International Volume II, 1914–1943” By Julius Braunthal. Translated by John Clark
Marxists.org
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1262/lenins-misreading-of-marx/
„War, Peace, and Revolution: International Socialism at the Crossroads, 1914-1918” by D. G. Kirby
„The Poverty of Philosophy” by Karl Marx
„the Manifesto of the Communist Party” by Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
https://www.biography.com/political-figure/vladimir-lenin
„Karl Marx” by Francis Wheen
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26214191
For Chapter 3:
„Class Theory and History Capitalism and Communism in the USSR”
By Stephen A. Resnick, Richard D. Wolff
„The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union, 1913-1945”
Edited by R. W. Davies, University of Birmingham, Mark Harrison, University of Warwick, S. G. Wheatcroft, University of Melbourne
https://books.google.pl/books?hl=pl&lr=&id=MmqFAh69OUoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=leon+trotsky&ots=awdDrVIuHQ&sig=d8_JtxYkJj_YYx-p2lsNDiI_jmM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=leon%20trotsky&f=false
„Das Kapital, Volume I” by Karl Marx
https://youtu.be/UGmYrjfg7yU
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/survivorshipbias.asp
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-myth-of-the-successful-college-dropout-why-it-could-make-millions-of-young-americans-poorer/273628/
https://www.wykop.pl/wpis/35196065/dam-wam-dzis-historyjki-o-tzw-bledzie-przezywalnos/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/05775132.1991.11471506?journalCode=mcha20
„Perestroika Versus Socialism: Stalinism and the Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR” by David North
For Chapter 4:
„Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism” by David D. Roberts
https://psmag.com/social-justice/an-end-to-horseshoe-theory
https://books.google.pl/books?id=hFXICgAAQBAJ&pg=PA16&dq=horseshoe+theory+is+wrong&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ8pKB94H1AhXjlIsKHeiYA8oQ6AF6BAgKEAI#v=onepage&q=horseshoe%20theory%20is%20wrong&f=false
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYgyEn6t-F4&ab_channel=StrefaKulturUniwersytetuSWPS
„Unending Capitalism: How Consumerism Negated China's Communist Revolution” by Karl Gerth
https://www.dukeupress.edu/millenarian-vision-capitalist-reality
„From Revolution to Power in Brazil - How Radical Leftists Embraced Capitalism and Struggled with Leadership” by Kenneth P. Serbin
For Chapter 5:
„Unending Capitalism: How Consumerism Negated China's Communist Revolution” by Karl Gerth
https://books.google.pl/books?id=WY5_DAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=che+guevara+vs+capitalism&hl=pl&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=che%20guevara%20vs%20capitalism&f=false
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44114930
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/africa-fidel-castro-nelson-mandela-cuba
http://db.nelsonmandela.org/speeches/pub_view.asp?ItemID=NMS1526&pg=item
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-04-28-with-madiba-in-cuba-how-fidel-castro-helped-nelson-mandela-free-south-africa/
For Chapter 6:
https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.226787598000139
https://books.google.pl/books?hl=pl&lr=&id=nB_3DAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=venezuela+vs+capitalism&ots=lNvE-VB-81&sig=9yt1AcwU60Rnrpp4w5YNispHR1U&redir_esc=y
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40241166
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0094582X16673633
https://psmag.com/ideas/corruption-not-socialism-brought-down-venezuela
https://youtu.be/dqB-EMqpsUA
For Chapter 7:
https://youtu.be/rgiC8YfytDw\
„the Manifesto of the Communist Party” by Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalisms-Crisis-Deepens-Economic-Meltdown/dp/1608465950
Marxists.org
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Economic+Compulsion+to+Work
https://youtu.be/Ps8DDjjSRxQ
„Understanding Marxism” by Richard D. Wolff
„Global Capitalism, Global War, Global Crisis” by Andreas Bieler and Adam David Morton
https://youtu.be/Hz2Po1yhN98
https://youtu.be/j8lHBpZve6E
For Chapter 8:
„Das Kapital, Volume I” by Karl Marx
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-1
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8551.00247
Marxists.org
https://youtu.be/fSQgCy_iIcc
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697450600901616?journalCode=cppr20
„Unending Capitalism: How Consumerism Negated China's Communist Revolution” by Karl Gerth
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08935690500046785
„The Letters of Rosa Luxemburg” (;by Rosa Luxemburg) Edited by Georg Adler, Peter Hudis, and Annelies Laschitza, Translated by George Shriver
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1056492615573325
„Understanding Marxism” by Richard D. Wolff
https://www.versobooks.com/books/2822-the-people-s-republic-of-walmart
„Global Capitalism, Global War, Global Crisis” by Andreas Bieler and Adam David Morton
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08935690701412745
https://books.google.pl/books?hl=pl&lr=&id=IXcjEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT3&dq=work+alienation+richard+d.+wolff&ots=jgliJVajrz&sig=TagaJZLPhTZ0d1nQ46wK7ZrLvh4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
For Chapter 9:
The conclusion is the result of a fusion of deductions from all the source materials mentioned earlier.
https://youtu.be/4ZjD8LplhK4
Comments