Why Communism is a Failed Religion
video description
Date: 2023-06-09
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 18
PlutoTheGod
I find it funny how most communists don t realize their gripe with capitalism is feeling suppressed by big corporations and the rich, but communism is literally the same part of that system they hate but magnified. You will have nothing of your own or opportunity to build the life you want outside of middle class if you re lucky, innovation of technologies and modern social movements start to slow down or be suppressed, and instead of big corporations everyone s so bothered by, you just form the biggest corporation (the government) and they rule over your entire life. You live to keep the balance of a very thin line as the economy does not compete and evolve off one another anymore, so instead of gaining the benefits of capitalists competing and thriving off one another you just tow the line until it inevitably snags as to which there is no backup so it just goes down the chain breaking every link until collapse. You quite literally are being kept alive by your government just to be used for your labor to keep all the other links in the chain operating at a standard level rather than progressing & competing for market share that keeps people both consuming and motivated to reach new highs as the opportunity is in their hands.
In short communism only works when enough people who can t meet the minimum requirements of the free world decide things would work a lot better if everyone was forced down to their level, but instead they just find out no matter what they still are stuck working a job to survive and now they re in a situation where there is no competitive wages and career hopping. There is show up to factory all day and go home to sleep at your government built white cement apartment with the same layout as everyone else in town
reply
I find it funny how most communists don t realize their gripe with capitalism is feeling suppressed by big corporations and the rich, but communism is literally the same part of that system they hate but magnified. You will have nothing of your own or opportunity to build the life you want outside of middle class if you re lucky, innovation of technologies and modern social movements start to slow down or be suppressed, and instead of big corporations everyone s so bothered by, you just form the biggest corporation (the government) and they rule over your entire life. You live to keep the balance of a very thin line as the economy does not compete and evolve off one another anymore, so instead of gaining the benefits of capitalists competing and thriving off one another you just tow the line until it inevitably snags as to which there is no backup so it just goes down the chain breaking every link until collapse. You quite literally are being kept alive by your government just to be used for your labor to keep all the other links in the chain operating at a standard level rather than progressing & competing for market share that keeps people both consuming and motivated to reach new highs as the opportunity is in their hands.
In short communism only works when enough people who can t meet the minimum requirements of the free world decide things would work a lot better if everyone was forced down to their level, but instead they just find out no matter what they still are stuck working a job to survive and now they re in a situation where there is no competitive wages and career hopping. There is show up to factory all day and go home to sleep at your government built white cement apartment with the same layout as everyone else in town
reply
2Dmensions
I am a History student and I honestly disagree with you around 6: 30. Around WW1 and the early 19th century, productivity increases wasn't what improved the lives of working Europeans. It was left-leaning socialist working-class representation in many European republican governments. Which in many ways were influenced directly from Marx. You saying that Marx didn't foresee how the lives of working people would improve on their own while under capitalism yet you are ignoring the socialist contribution to the political and ideological environment of the time. This omission feels pretty gross on your part and makes me feel like you have some agenda. You are acting like Marx had no influence when countries like France and England saw significant socialist/labor representation in their governments throughout this time which obviously played a role in improving the conditions of the working class. That's pretty obvious if you consider that Communism is not socialism. What you describe as communism in your map portions is the USSR and CCP or Stalinism and Maoism which are both authoritarian governments which are not ideologically aligned with socialism and even Marx's own idea for communism. Communism is supposed to be inherently democratic. Stalinism and Maoism are authoritative dictatorships. You don't need me to explain that to you but it seems like you think that that is all Marx advocated for when his main message was about working rights and worker solidarity. His ideology was not a blueprint for a state but rather vision of a society ruled by the working class.
reply
I am a History student and I honestly disagree with you around 6: 30. Around WW1 and the early 19th century, productivity increases wasn't what improved the lives of working Europeans. It was left-leaning socialist working-class representation in many European republican governments. Which in many ways were influenced directly from Marx. You saying that Marx didn't foresee how the lives of working people would improve on their own while under capitalism yet you are ignoring the socialist contribution to the political and ideological environment of the time. This omission feels pretty gross on your part and makes me feel like you have some agenda. You are acting like Marx had no influence when countries like France and England saw significant socialist/labor representation in their governments throughout this time which obviously played a role in improving the conditions of the working class. That's pretty obvious if you consider that Communism is not socialism. What you describe as communism in your map portions is the USSR and CCP or Stalinism and Maoism which are both authoritarian governments which are not ideologically aligned with socialism and even Marx's own idea for communism. Communism is supposed to be inherently democratic. Stalinism and Maoism are authoritative dictatorships. You don't need me to explain that to you but it seems like you think that that is all Marx advocated for when his main message was about working rights and worker solidarity. His ideology was not a blueprint for a state but rather vision of a society ruled by the working class.
reply
June
The descriptors of left/right brain function do not hold up well, although the intention of those functions tend to fit left/right ideology and behaviour. Eg the left brain is responsible for speech and communication, but this is overlapped with forebrain function. The right brain is often associated with intuition and unspoken knowledge, underlying, unchallenged beliefs. But who knows, really? Much of our emotional life, non-articulated aspects, come from the older, more primitive parts of the brain, often mistaken for right brain function and associated with emotions like love, fear and ability to feel pain, which we associate with being human and suppose animals are not capable of. But, the reverse is more true. Animals, including ourselves, have plenty of primitive brain function. It is the forebrain that deals with logic, reasoning, advanced communication and abstract thought, in coordination with both sides of the brain. Female brains tend to have a more even distribution of function between brain sides, supposedly, while males tend to have a more selective division of roles in the brain, supposedly. There is allot of overlap. The differences in behaviour, eg manipulative female behaviour and use of shaming to control peers, is probably partly learned behaviour because of smaller size and less strength, so not able to force others to obey or act differently. But these traits could also become part of genetics as the females who survived would have required traits that helped them survive. It s complicated. Otherwise, I think this analysis hits the right notes.
reply
The descriptors of left/right brain function do not hold up well, although the intention of those functions tend to fit left/right ideology and behaviour. Eg the left brain is responsible for speech and communication, but this is overlapped with forebrain function. The right brain is often associated with intuition and unspoken knowledge, underlying, unchallenged beliefs. But who knows, really? Much of our emotional life, non-articulated aspects, come from the older, more primitive parts of the brain, often mistaken for right brain function and associated with emotions like love, fear and ability to feel pain, which we associate with being human and suppose animals are not capable of. But, the reverse is more true. Animals, including ourselves, have plenty of primitive brain function. It is the forebrain that deals with logic, reasoning, advanced communication and abstract thought, in coordination with both sides of the brain. Female brains tend to have a more even distribution of function between brain sides, supposedly, while males tend to have a more selective division of roles in the brain, supposedly. There is allot of overlap. The differences in behaviour, eg manipulative female behaviour and use of shaming to control peers, is probably partly learned behaviour because of smaller size and less strength, so not able to force others to obey or act differently. But these traits could also become part of genetics as the females who survived would have required traits that helped them survive. It s complicated. Otherwise, I think this analysis hits the right notes.
reply
McNulty's
I have major issues with Marxism (and ideology in general, the older I get) and I _do not_ believe in utopia, but I am anti-capitalist and will be until I'm laying in a box.
Too many of my fellow Americans (and their kids) are hungry. Too many can't afford higher education. Too many can't afford healthcare. Too many can't afford a home. Meanwhile, a Kardashian girl signs a piece of paper and by 22 she's a billionaire.
Again, I have no love for Soviet-style Stalinism (which is why I appreciate much of this video) or Maoism, I especially despise the tone deaf elitism of Leninism, and I'm much more critical of my fellow leftists these days than not (way too much obsession with racial inequality with little to no attention paid to class inequality) (likely because many prominent American leftists are fabulously wealthy, in my opinion, but by my eyes, capitalism is inherently, ruthlessly exploitative, and if it can't be eradicated I believe it must be radically reformed.
My personal focus isn't so much universal equality or even politics, it's simply the alleviation of the suffering that extreme poverty, propped up by capitalism, entails. You can't have extreme poverty without extreme wealth (which, in my opinion, is just greed)
reply
I have major issues with Marxism (and ideology in general, the older I get) and I _do not_ believe in utopia, but I am anti-capitalist and will be until I'm laying in a box.
Too many of my fellow Americans (and their kids) are hungry. Too many can't afford higher education. Too many can't afford healthcare. Too many can't afford a home. Meanwhile, a Kardashian girl signs a piece of paper and by 22 she's a billionaire.
Again, I have no love for Soviet-style Stalinism (which is why I appreciate much of this video) or Maoism, I especially despise the tone deaf elitism of Leninism, and I'm much more critical of my fellow leftists these days than not (way too much obsession with racial inequality with little to no attention paid to class inequality) (likely because many prominent American leftists are fabulously wealthy, in my opinion, but by my eyes, capitalism is inherently, ruthlessly exploitative, and if it can't be eradicated I believe it must be radically reformed.
My personal focus isn't so much universal equality or even politics, it's simply the alleviation of the suffering that extreme poverty, propped up by capitalism, entails. You can't have extreme poverty without extreme wealth (which, in my opinion, is just greed)
reply
aidsmaster
You finally managed to put into words why I couldn't ever understand my socialist/communist friends arguing with me over political matters. It's so easy to criticize capitalism because it is the current reality we live in and we can see its faults first hand, but any time you try to argue against their ideas which fail each time, they either get mad and start insulting, don't want to talk about it or slide the arguments. It wasn't for the lack of trying, too. I realized communism must be inherently dogmatic, just like religion, so you should treat these people a bit like you treat religious fanatics. Yes, deep down they do want unconditional good for everyone, but they got far too stuck up their own opinions to change their minds. I could see the fruits of this system first hand since I was born and raised in Poland, admittedly there was some good that came out of our iteration, but ultimately it created a society that didn't ever have to compete with anyone. You can especially see this when looking at our post war boomer generation, which easily is the most entitled generation here and their votes are simply bought by the current ruling party. So cancer of society is a very fitting description. Great vid!
reply
You finally managed to put into words why I couldn't ever understand my socialist/communist friends arguing with me over political matters. It's so easy to criticize capitalism because it is the current reality we live in and we can see its faults first hand, but any time you try to argue against their ideas which fail each time, they either get mad and start insulting, don't want to talk about it or slide the arguments. It wasn't for the lack of trying, too. I realized communism must be inherently dogmatic, just like religion, so you should treat these people a bit like you treat religious fanatics. Yes, deep down they do want unconditional good for everyone, but they got far too stuck up their own opinions to change their minds. I could see the fruits of this system first hand since I was born and raised in Poland, admittedly there was some good that came out of our iteration, but ultimately it created a society that didn't ever have to compete with anyone. You can especially see this when looking at our post war boomer generation, which easily is the most entitled generation here and their votes are simply bought by the current ruling party. So cancer of society is a very fitting description. Great vid!
reply
education
I used to kinda ideologically identify as communist, but ironically I got disillusioned by it when I studied social work in college (a very left leaning study.
Later on I learned about spiral dynamics (a psychological development model) and again my view of the world and humanity changed drastically, seeing a relatively predictable long term evolution societies go through. And it showed me that there's no 'one size fits all' when it comes to political and economic systems. It comes down to the collective stage of development a society as a whole is at. Some societies right now are better suited for an autocratic system, others function better in a liberal or other kind of system. like when the US tried to install democracy (spiral dynamics stage orange) in Afghanistan, maybe it worked in the city, but most of the country as far as I've heard is rural with people identifying with their tribe (SD stage purple) instead of the Afghan nationality. you can't just skip a couple stages like that.
Many times in your video I wished you would've included the model as it changed my view so greatly
reply
I used to kinda ideologically identify as communist, but ironically I got disillusioned by it when I studied social work in college (a very left leaning study.
Later on I learned about spiral dynamics (a psychological development model) and again my view of the world and humanity changed drastically, seeing a relatively predictable long term evolution societies go through. And it showed me that there's no 'one size fits all' when it comes to political and economic systems. It comes down to the collective stage of development a society as a whole is at. Some societies right now are better suited for an autocratic system, others function better in a liberal or other kind of system. like when the US tried to install democracy (spiral dynamics stage orange) in Afghanistan, maybe it worked in the city, but most of the country as far as I've heard is rural with people identifying with their tribe (SD stage purple) instead of the Afghan nationality. you can't just skip a couple stages like that.
Many times in your video I wished you would've included the model as it changed my view so greatly
reply
Maxim
One of the things I love about you Rudyard is that you don t waste time responding to all of the people who criticize you. You made that mistake once with Vaush when you debated him and you learned the lesson well.
I ve watch a few of the critiques of you and it s literally just whining, complaining, projection, seething, replacing actual history with Marxist and or liberal dogma, and straight up hated.
That s why you don t actually have to respond to the people who criticize you, just let them make themselves look like idiots and save your time so you can make more videos, that will be criticized, and the cycle continues.
Again you learned this from Vaush, you and he debated and he just made a fool of himself. You kept interrupting and trying to prove him wrong and you tried to teach him things and he refused to learn. During the debate you kept trying but I think you figured out that if someone is just rambling on, slandering, and saying none sense then you can just let them.
With all that being said I d say this is a wonderful video and keep up the good work.
reply
One of the things I love about you Rudyard is that you don t waste time responding to all of the people who criticize you. You made that mistake once with Vaush when you debated him and you learned the lesson well.
I ve watch a few of the critiques of you and it s literally just whining, complaining, projection, seething, replacing actual history with Marxist and or liberal dogma, and straight up hated.
That s why you don t actually have to respond to the people who criticize you, just let them make themselves look like idiots and save your time so you can make more videos, that will be criticized, and the cycle continues.
Again you learned this from Vaush, you and he debated and he just made a fool of himself. You kept interrupting and trying to prove him wrong and you tried to teach him things and he refused to learn. During the debate you kept trying but I think you figured out that if someone is just rambling on, slandering, and saying none sense then you can just let them.
With all that being said I d say this is a wonderful video and keep up the good work.
reply
livinginahotdog
At around 29 minute mark you talk about the behavior of a communist you met then continue crtiquing postmodernists in their discussion tactics as if they are the same person as the communists you talked about. Oddly this is intelecutally dishonest, as postmodernist philosophy isnt the same thing as marxism. You. can make the argument that some postmodernist thinkers were supportive of socialism, but that doesnt equate to critquing their particulat philosophy. The thing is it is hard to critique post modernism itself as it is not a monolith (we are not even gettng into postmodernism in other fields, as that is even more scattered), and to be intelecutally honest you shoukd critique particular philosophers and their views(e. g.: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, etc. I expect more of you and please, who reads my comment and wants to reply, lets keep it civil and have a good faith discussion, not necessarly a debate that we have to win, but as a discussion to satisfy our curiosity.
reply
At around 29 minute mark you talk about the behavior of a communist you met then continue crtiquing postmodernists in their discussion tactics as if they are the same person as the communists you talked about. Oddly this is intelecutally dishonest, as postmodernist philosophy isnt the same thing as marxism. You. can make the argument that some postmodernist thinkers were supportive of socialism, but that doesnt equate to critquing their particulat philosophy. The thing is it is hard to critique post modernism itself as it is not a monolith (we are not even gettng into postmodernism in other fields, as that is even more scattered), and to be intelecutally honest you shoukd critique particular philosophers and their views(e. g.: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, etc. I expect more of you and please, who reads my comment and wants to reply, lets keep it civil and have a good faith discussion, not necessarly a debate that we have to win, but as a discussion to satisfy our curiosity.
reply
David
Your argument on equality being false is a misrepresentation. Everyone knows there is no such thing as total equality. The Left (your boogeyman) simply tries to make sure people are treated equally in society. Two different things. If you think facts should be spoken no matter how uncomfortable, as you claimed, you should make a video explaining that most progress in society is because of the progressive left; hence the name. Conservatives by their very name & nature tend to stagnate. Conservatives always tend to demonise progressives, while enjoying their societal & technological progress. You do it yourself, the way you talk about intellectuals & universities.
reply
Your argument on equality being false is a misrepresentation. Everyone knows there is no such thing as total equality. The Left (your boogeyman) simply tries to make sure people are treated equally in society. Two different things. If you think facts should be spoken no matter how uncomfortable, as you claimed, you should make a video explaining that most progress in society is because of the progressive left; hence the name. Conservatives by their very name & nature tend to stagnate. Conservatives always tend to demonise progressives, while enjoying their societal & technological progress. You do it yourself, the way you talk about intellectuals & universities.
reply
Meta
Oh brother with your cherrypicking.
Arguing COMMUNISM is like a religion, with arguments that could be used on MOST ANYTHING people have politically believed in throughout history.
Attacking the inspirations of Communism/Nihilism for who they were, when you can do so toward most major political leaders and creators who ever lived if one so chose to cherrypick.
You are not biased because the issues you bring up are wrong -they are correct issues with Communism.
Your fault lies in seeing only the faults, and seeing faults in Communism through a lens that could fault ANY belief system or creator of any belief system.
This is completely asinine.
reply
Oh brother with your cherrypicking.
Arguing COMMUNISM is like a religion, with arguments that could be used on MOST ANYTHING people have politically believed in throughout history.
Attacking the inspirations of Communism/Nihilism for who they were, when you can do so toward most major political leaders and creators who ever lived if one so chose to cherrypick.
You are not biased because the issues you bring up are wrong -they are correct issues with Communism.
Your fault lies in seeing only the faults, and seeing faults in Communism through a lens that could fault ANY belief system or creator of any belief system.
This is completely asinine.
reply
Wolf
Lol. Each video now I just wait for the moment Rudyard blames the left for every conceivable crime known to humanity while entirely overlooking the right's transgressions at every possible level. but this video was jumping the shark. It's just a fifty minute diatribe, and while he makes some good points, his hatred for leftist ideals has him quoting a book about brain science to blame the left hemisphere for communist ills even if the book describes much of our capitalist scientific zero sum world as a result of exactly that narrow control oriented brain. If he spent half his brain power also critiquing the right it might fry his right hemisphere.
reply
Lol. Each video now I just wait for the moment Rudyard blames the left for every conceivable crime known to humanity while entirely overlooking the right's transgressions at every possible level. but this video was jumping the shark. It's just a fifty minute diatribe, and while he makes some good points, his hatred for leftist ideals has him quoting a book about brain science to blame the left hemisphere for communist ills even if the book describes much of our capitalist scientific zero sum world as a result of exactly that narrow control oriented brain. If he spent half his brain power also critiquing the right it might fry his right hemisphere.
reply
NotACheeseMachine
I never lived in the communist era of my country of Czechia, but I can still feel the scars it brought to us.
Before communism, Czech products were seen as high quality, our cars were very competetive and just the sheer potential of our uranium mines could have made us a hub for everything nuclear in Europe.
After communism, you can see barely any Czech made products except for glass products, our cars are a mediocre offshoot of Volkswagen at best and all our uranium was stolen by the Soviets.
The absolute destruction brought on by communism can never heal, it never will be healed and will remain a tragedy for our nation.
reply
I never lived in the communist era of my country of Czechia, but I can still feel the scars it brought to us.
Before communism, Czech products were seen as high quality, our cars were very competetive and just the sheer potential of our uranium mines could have made us a hub for everything nuclear in Europe.
After communism, you can see barely any Czech made products except for glass products, our cars are a mediocre offshoot of Volkswagen at best and all our uranium was stolen by the Soviets.
The absolute destruction brought on by communism can never heal, it never will be healed and will remain a tragedy for our nation.
reply
Vitalii
Two objects are identical if and only if they have the same attributes and properties. Therefore it is enough to show that there is at least one attribute or property that describes exclusively only one of the two objects. Religion is always concerned about the life after death, miracles, divine entities etc. Those are beliefs, thus things that are not directly observable and are impossible to prove or disprove. The ideology maybe based on wrong premises too, but it is always possible to disprove them. Therefore any political ideology is not the same as religion. The may have a lot of similarities, but the are separate entities.
reply
Two objects are identical if and only if they have the same attributes and properties. Therefore it is enough to show that there is at least one attribute or property that describes exclusively only one of the two objects. Religion is always concerned about the life after death, miracles, divine entities etc. Those are beliefs, thus things that are not directly observable and are impossible to prove or disprove. The ideology maybe based on wrong premises too, but it is always possible to disprove them. Therefore any political ideology is not the same as religion. The may have a lot of similarities, but the are separate entities.
reply
TP
The only thing I can disagree on it's nitpicking the tittle
A failed religion is something like Egyptian gods and Olympians or Norse
A failed religion has a name it's mythology
Communism unfortunately isn't a mythology yet
So communism isn't completely a failed religion yet
Like normal religion as long as there are believers testifying for it and doing missionary work trying to spread it
That's a religion with good or bad health but still alive
Communism is a religion that has failed
But it's not a failed religion because it's a religion unfortunately still active and trying to rewrite those failures
reply
The only thing I can disagree on it's nitpicking the tittle
A failed religion is something like Egyptian gods and Olympians or Norse
A failed religion has a name it's mythology
Communism unfortunately isn't a mythology yet
So communism isn't completely a failed religion yet
Like normal religion as long as there are believers testifying for it and doing missionary work trying to spread it
That's a religion with good or bad health but still alive
Communism is a religion that has failed
But it's not a failed religion because it's a religion unfortunately still active and trying to rewrite those failures
reply
Gabriel
Hi Rudyard. I really want to see a video on the seeming correlation between Buddhism, Folk Religion and Irreligion. I've seen your other videos mentioning how Irreligious Communist Civilisation and the Mongol Empire (which spread Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhism and a Legal System built on Buddhism) have pretty much the same map. Statistically, I've seen that people who identify with Folk Religion and Irreligion pretty much all live in states which have at some point in its immediate history has been officially Buddhist and/or Communist.
Why Buddhism, Folk Religion and Irreligion are connected.
reply
Hi Rudyard. I really want to see a video on the seeming correlation between Buddhism, Folk Religion and Irreligion. I've seen your other videos mentioning how Irreligious Communist Civilisation and the Mongol Empire (which spread Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhism and a Legal System built on Buddhism) have pretty much the same map. Statistically, I've seen that people who identify with Folk Religion and Irreligion pretty much all live in states which have at some point in its immediate history has been officially Buddhist and/or Communist.
Why Buddhism, Folk Religion and Irreligion are connected.
reply
M0rgulus
The only people who are communists are idealists, those who haven't lived through it and opportunists. It's impossible to be a communist if you're the least bit realistic and sensible. Communism is an ideology driven by resentment; it's even a false ideology of equality, since the workers are told: Hey, do you see the others? Well, we're going to piss them off and make their lives miserable, so they'll be just like you. On the other hand, we're not going to improve your conditions, just make the others as miserable as you are.
reply
The only people who are communists are idealists, those who haven't lived through it and opportunists. It's impossible to be a communist if you're the least bit realistic and sensible. Communism is an ideology driven by resentment; it's even a false ideology of equality, since the workers are told: Hey, do you see the others? Well, we're going to piss them off and make their lives miserable, so they'll be just like you. On the other hand, we're not going to improve your conditions, just make the others as miserable as you are.
reply
Adventurepee
Marx was Jewish by ancestry, but he wasn't even really a secular Jew as his father was already converted to Lutheranism before Karl was born and when Karl was age 7, his mother also converted and his parents converted Karl as well. The full rejection of Judaism and Jewish identity by his family before he was even at an age old enough to form his own identity means he never really had a Jewish identity at all, not even a secular one. In fact Marx's ideology was often overtly antisemitic ironically enough.
reply
Marx was Jewish by ancestry, but he wasn't even really a secular Jew as his father was already converted to Lutheranism before Karl was born and when Karl was age 7, his mother also converted and his parents converted Karl as well. The full rejection of Judaism and Jewish identity by his family before he was even at an age old enough to form his own identity means he never really had a Jewish identity at all, not even a secular one. In fact Marx's ideology was often overtly antisemitic ironically enough.
reply
JWil42
I remember hearing someone say that history can t be periodic/cyclical because people who say it is end up stretching definitions to get it to fit their idea of cycles. However, I think they re trying to say that because it isn t exactly perfect you re wrong, and they think for something to be periodic, it has to repeat the exact same way in the exact same amount of time, akin to a sinusoidal plot. History still operates in cycles, even if they aren t perfectly periodic or transpire the exact same way.
reply
I remember hearing someone say that history can t be periodic/cyclical because people who say it is end up stretching definitions to get it to fit their idea of cycles. However, I think they re trying to say that because it isn t exactly perfect you re wrong, and they think for something to be periodic, it has to repeat the exact same way in the exact same amount of time, akin to a sinusoidal plot. History still operates in cycles, even if they aren t perfectly periodic or transpire the exact same way.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
