Former Socialism's Faults | Hakim | History Teacher Reacts

Hakim @YaBoiHakim discusses the past failures of Socialism. Are these problems inherit to Socialism, or are they lessons for future Socialism? Mr. Terry reacts and responds!

Join my channel to get early-access to new videos!

Links:

#socialism #sovietunion #communism

[MrTerry]

Are these problems inherent to socialism, or just lessons for the future of socialism?

[zealisrealfan]

Dictatorship had a different meaning in marx’ time. Not meaning ruled by a Dictator, but ruled with absolute authority. Dictatorship of the Proletariat meaning ruled only by the complete authority of the working class.

Edit: To clarify, according to marx we live in a dictatorship of the bourgeois where everything from prices, natural resources(land), labor itself, and the entire means of production is under the total authority of capital owners, no matter what government they exist under.

[UmEditorMarxista]

I'm a Marxist (duh) and I'm really liking your vids. You're incredibly honest on your takes, while being respectfull and trying to understand diff people worldviews

[tannerpost]

This. Is. How. Honest. Dialect. Is. Done. You have been the most open minded YouTuber outside of the leftist sphere when it comes to Socialism and its past. Not omitting or rejecting any facts, and even keeping an open mind when Hakim said the soviets should've purged more. A bunch of others would've had a way bigger knee-jerk reaction to that. Can't wait for more videos on this subject!

[aliteralparadox]

the book recommendation for michael parenti's Blackshirts and reds is great, you should read it its very interesting. and he also has a book called the assassination of Julius Caesar which is a class analysis of rome, its not focused on the nobility which is a pretty fresh perspective

[josephgeorge]

Yugopnik, the third host of The Deprogram, has some good videos on Socialist Yugoslavia, as well as general Balkan history.

[iamroberty]

You're missing the meaning of dictatorship when people were saying "dictatorship of the proletariat". In the common parlance dictatorship means autocracy, but it used to mean a society where someone dictates. So all societies were dictatorships, the question was (and still is, I suppose) who dictates? A monarch? The bourgeoisie? The proletariat?

[jeffisfine]

Another even-handed look at the source. A few comments:

1) An interesting area of discussion in political philosophy is the problem of legitimacy, legitimacy being the one thing all governments are aiming for in the long run. There are many individual factors and combination of factors that can contribute to or take away from the legitimacy of a system and many theories about how the legitimacy of a system declines over time. This can lead to perceived paradoxes, such as participation not necessarily being an objective good to be maximized in all contexts because it can give people so much control that there will always be a subsection of the population at any given time that will feel slighted by democratic decisions by other subsections.

2) He is a devout Muslim, so does not take as hard a line on religion as, say, Lenin.

3) His stance on the purges is that while they were likely excessive in some decisions, the main focal point in the critique of them is that they had to be done at all. That the party, military, and such became so contaminated with Nazi sympathizers is a huge stain on the Communist Party. Unfortunately, given that state of things, they arguably had to act swiftly and with prejudice, else the whole system would fall to Germany. There's also the myth that many people perpetuate that they were "Stalin's purges" as if he personally ordered all of them. He overturned many of them done by others. So while we should analyze the faults of the implementation of the purges, Hakim's bigger point is that we should analyze how to make sure such a situation isn't necessary in the future.

[rozza]

Hi Terry, I am a marxist and a socialist I would like to thank you for your coverage and critique of Hakim. You are very clearly passionate about history and hearing other people's perspectives and your critiques of Hakim are both constructive and in good faith, something that can be difficult to find in this post-information era.

[rantsolot]

Regarding the purges, I think that Goebbels' diary entries throughout Operation Barbarossa are really fascinating.

Preceding their attack he wrote:
“We have before a triumphal march unprecedented [...]. I consider the military strength of the Russians very low, possibly even lower than the Führer does. If there was ever an action with an assured outcome, it is this.”


In April 1938, Goebbels wrote in his diary: “Our clandestine radio transmitter from East Prussia to Russia is causing a great stir. It operates in the name of Trotsky, and gives Stalin a hard time.”

Right after the invasion of Russia, he wrote: “We are now working with three underground radio stations for Russia: the first is Trotskyist, the second separatist, the third Russian-nationalist, all three of them harsh against the Stalinist regime.”

On August 1st, a month since operations, Goebbels writes: ‘The headquarters of the Führer [...] is also openly admitting that it has erred a little in the assessment of Soviet military strength. The Bolsheviks are displaying more resistance than we had assumed; in particular, they have more material means at their disposal than we believed.’

August 19th: ‘Privately, the Führer is very irritated with himself for having been deceived so much about the potential of the Bolsheviks by reports from [German agents in] the Soviet Union. In particular, his underestimation of the enemy’s armored infantry and air force has created many problems. He has suffered a lot. This is a serious crisis [...]. The campaigns we had carried out until now were almost walks [...]. The Führer had no reason to be concerned about the west [...]. In our German rigor and objectivity we have always overestimated the enemy, with the exception in this case of the Bolsheviks.’


Following Operation Barbarossa: “For our confidants and our spies it was almost impossible to penetrate inside the Soviet Union. They could not acquire a precise vision. The Bolsheviks have worked directly to deceive us. Of a number of weapons they possessed, especially heavy weapons, we were unable to learn anything clearly. Exactly the opposite occurred in France, where we knew practically everything and could not have been surprised at all.”

September 16th: ‘We calculated the potential of the Bolsheviks in a completely erroneous way.’

[turtlegamez]

For the purges part, you should check out the Finnish Bolshevik's video on the Moscow Trials. They're very long and in depth so they wouldn't really fit the react format, but for your own personal research they are great.

[semors]

Second Thought mainly talks about current events and politics. Not sure if it would fit for the channel but I'd still watch it!

[HollowGolem]

I think his take on Stalin's purges was that they were as large-scale and destructive as they were because more tactically precise, small-scale ones weren't more judiciously used. His day-job is as a doctor, so he's likely thinking of a sort of preventative care model regarding party infiltration.

Regarding the other two, Yugopnik is the one with more historical videos (though not all of his are historical; his most recent video is just about weird fascist fringe movements), and most of JT's stuff is more current-events.

[plumily]

you’re a really honest reactor, and i’ve watched your channel in the past, your analysis is really honest and open

[brandonlovelady]

To the point on religion, Hakim is a practicing Muslim and has the first profession of the Shahadah in his YouTube bio.

[andorifjohn]

In a political parties there are always formal or informal sub-parties or lines that try to affect a party or a nation. One or more parties is pretty irrelevant to democracy in practice.

[ifoughtpiranhas]

PLEASE read Losurdo's work Liberalism: a counter history and Stalin: history and critique of a black legend. Both are exceptional!

[CaseyMcGregorAu]

Yes please react to Second Thought, granted he's a bit more current affairs and outreach than historical analysis.

[danielcoats]

Yes, I do think that the Soviet Union underestimated the impact of standardization of things, such as language, to a more Russian perspective. Marxists can have tunnel vision, due to its emphasis on materialist analysis, on the idea of material conditions ultimately creating culture, and therefore forget that there is pre-existing culture that means something to people. If you are a more privileged sect of society, you can lose sight of this and go forward with policies that can be disenfranchising. Future Socialisms will need to be built with an emphasis on autonomy for these minority or politically disengaged groups.

[chadbrisco]

John F. Kennedy: just because something hasn't worked in the past doesn't mean it won't ever work in the future.