YouTube Instagram TikTok How it works FAQ

The fastest way to turn talking videos into clean, searchable text. Free, private and no account required.

About

Built by Rishav Raj with one goal: free transcripts for everyone.

rishav@yttotranscript.com

Transcribe

YouTube to text
YouTube with timestamps
Instagram Reels
TikTok videos

Learn

How it works
FAQ
YouTube transcripts guide

More

Chrome extension
Contact
Privacy policy
Terms of service

© 2026 YTtoTranscript. Made for creators & researchers.

Not affiliated with YouTube, Instagram or TikTok. Respect creators’ copyright.

Anti-Kommunistische Mythen widerlegt — Transcript · YTtoTranscript

Home/Transcripts/YouTube

YouTube Transcript

Anti-Kommunistische Mythen widerlegt

TitosLeftLung · 2,299 words · 11 min read · EN

Watch on YouTube

Share X LinkedIn WhatsApp

Below is the complete, readable transcript of Anti-Kommunistische Mythen widerlegt by TitosLeftLung on YouTube. Read the full text, copy any part you need, or generate a transcript for any video with our free tool.

You probably know the feeling: you talk about social justice, the many problems of capitalism, you wish for a better world, and then someone from the back row shouts, "But communism does n't work!" And then you ask why they believe that, and you always get the same few arguments. That's why I want to explain to you today how you

can refute these arguments. By the way, in this video, I will exceptionally

use the terms socialism and communism interchangeably to refer to the real socialism of the 20th century. Actually, both terms have their own definitions, and you shouldn't use them like that. However, I've found that most people who make these arguments probably can't even explain the difference to you. You can, of course, try to explain it to them,

but whether you're talking about socialism or communism is most likely irrelevant to them. And now, enjoy the [music] video: Communism doesn't work because humans are inherently selfish. I certainly don't want to deny that selfishness and greed are traits that occur in humans; that's perfectly clear. But to present it as if humans are always fundamentally selfish... Being

selfish and greedy is historically simply wrong. If that were the case, civilizations and societies wouldn't have even come into being. Humans are fundamentally social beings who are only where they are today because they have lived, hunted, and worked together. If our nature were selfish, we would exploit and manipulate every other person we meet for our

own benefit. Now, one might say that the social aspects are merely side effects of selfishness because community building ensures one's survival, but that would be too simplistic. The very fact that a community forms, which needs protecting, means that every person is not only fighting for themselves but also for something greater—the community itself. A person who

Transcribe another video

Paste any YouTube, Instagram or TikTok link to get a free transcript.

Free · No sign-up · Unlimited

Add to Chrome — transcribe in one click

acts exclusively selfishly would harm the community and be excluded from it, which in turn would reduce their chances of survival. Selfish behavior is therefore not the nature of humankind that ensures survival; on the contrary, it is even detrimental to it because one cannot survive very long alone as an outcast. However, capitalism is a system in which

greed, selfishness, and skillful manipulation of others are rewarded instead of punished. It is one The reasons why people are increasingly distancing themselves from one another and assume this state is the natural state of humanity because they know nothing else are simple. Egoism is therefore not human nature, but merely the nature of capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, relies

on solidarity and collective well-being, which is much closer to human nature. The notion that socialism always leads to a totalitarian dictatorship is a historically refuted generalization. It is true that real socialist states were often dictatorships. However, even if one were to consider the dictatorial form of government as inherently bad, even if it is in the interest of the population, this would by

no means be in the nature of communism. Communism, as conceived by Marx and Engels, aims at the worldwide liberation of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie and is therefore not at all totalitarian, but on the contrary, a struggle for more freedom and more human rights. The fact that the Soviet Union or the GDR

became dictatorships is not because there was no democratic option to implement socialism or communism. Such options certainly exist, and in the case of socialism, this has been done several times, for example in Chile under Salvador. More on this in this video. In Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara, the reason why real socialism often cracked down so harshly is due to the fact

that these democratic socialists tended to be mysteriously overthrown or murdered after a few years, either directly by or at least in the name of the Western nations. The Soviets recognized that, at the latest from 1918 onwards, when a total of 16 nations attempted to suppress the Russian Revolution with the White Army and failed, it

was clear from then on that the West would leave no stone unturned in its efforts to destroy socialism, and one must be prepared and equipped for this. Many of these dictatorships are therefore not due to socialism itself, but to the capitalist response to socialism. "In socialism, everyone starves" is a classic cliché. In

socialism, nobody has anything to eat. The supply of food to a country's population depends on many factors, including international sanctions and internal mismanagement. Cuba, for example, has been under US sanctions for 70 years, which, against the will of the rest of the world, refuse to lift. Therefore, Cuba's food supply problems are once again the

fault of the West. I know it's not due to socialism, quite simply. There are other examples of socialist countries that had no problems with food supply, for example, Burkina Faso, which, under Thomas Sankara, became completely self-sufficient in just a few years. Ziegler, the then UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, said in this context: "Thomas

Sankara has conquered hunger. He has contributed to Burkina Faso becoming food self-sufficient in four years." But what about the Soviet Union? Before the founding of the Soviet Union, famines were a huge problem in the Russian Empire. A large part of the lower population was malnourished. Every few years there were problems with the harvest, and

it certainly happened that hundreds of thousands of people starved to death. This was actually one of the reasons why the revolution even happened. People were suffering terribly and they longed for change. But how did things change in the Soviet Union? Let's first talk about the elephant in the room: there was, of course,

the Soviet famine of 1932-33, also known as the Holodomor, in which... 3.9 million people died. This was mainly due to the radical change of the system, the introduction of collectivization and industrialization as part of Stalin's Five-Year Plan. It was by no means a well-thought-out policy; there's nothing to sugarcoat about these 3.9 million deaths.

But apart from the Holodomor, there was another famine in 1947 as a consequence of World War II, with about 200,000 deaths, and none after that. Never again in the history of the Soviets was there another famine. On the contrary, opened CIA files show that the average Soviet citizen in the 1950s consumed 642 calories a day, which is

even more than what an adult man needs. I say again here that the price for this was far too high. Collectivization should never have cost so many lives. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union had secured food production for the rest of its existence. A similar situation applies to Mausolus China and the Great Leap Forward. Before the revolution, China, like the Tsarist Empire, had

a long history of famines, and in a country where even then around a Half a billion people lived during such a famine, and a correspondingly large number died. Here is a brief list of famines with death tolls: various famines from 1810 to 1849 (exact figures unknown): population decline of 45 million; famine from 1850 to 1873: 10 to 30

million dead; famine from 1876 to 1879: 9.5 to 13 million dead; famine from 1901: 200,000 dead; famine from 1906 to 1907: 20 to 25 million dead; famine from 1920 to 1921: 500,000 dead; famine from 1928 to 1930: 6 to 10 million dead; and famine from 1942 to 1943: 0.7 to 1 million dead. Don't misunderstand

me, this of course does not justify the victims of the famine who... The Great Leap Forward, a consequence of Mao's policies, is often described as a unique event of unprecedented proportions, which is simply not historically accurate. The only difference was that this famine occurred under a socialist government instead of a feudal one.

Discourse on socialism often focuses on the Holodomo and the Great Leap Forward, while Western states are deliberately ignored. You could theoretically stoop to your opponent's level of argumentation and, for example, criticize the famines in the capitalist British Empire. I'll do that here briefly: some figures on famines in the British colony of India: 1837 to

1838: 800,000 dead; 1860 to 1861: 2 million dead; 1865 to 1867: approx. 4.5 million dead; 1868 to 1870: 1.5 million dead; 1876 to 1878: 6.1 to 10.3 million dead; 1896 to 12 to 16 million dead in 1899 to 1900; 3 to 10 million dead in 1943 to 1944; 4.5 million dead in total. There were

famines in socialist countries, that is completely beyond question, just as there were famines in capitalist countries. However, these socialist countries were able to guarantee the food supply for their populations after the aforementioned famines. There were also socialist countries that combated and defeated hunger in their own countries with unprecedented efficiency without causing famines.

To say that socialism inevitably leads to famines is simply wrong. Rather, it ensures that countries that had major problems with famines in the past will no longer have to do so in the future after the appropriate transition. Of course, there is no innovation in socialism. The argument that there is no innovation in socialism

is actually very easy to refute if you know a little about history. Socialist systems have proven in the past that they can achieve great technological and scientific progress. can achieve and also have the potential to do so in the future. I've compiled a short list of innovations and advances from the former Soviet Union: the first

artificial heart by Vladimir Demirov in 1938; the first nuclear power plant in Obninsk in 1954; the first satellite in space, Sputnik 1, in 1957; the first mobile phone by Leonid Kubanovich in 1919; the first man and also the first human in space, Yuri Gagarin, in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereskover, in 1963 (meanwhile, the

American image of women looked like this); the first person to perform a spacewalk in a spacesuit, Alexei Leonov, in 1965; the first functioning space rover, Lunaford 1, in 1970; the first functioning space station in space, Salyut 1. So no, socialism doesn't prevent innovation; that 's simply a lie. Who would work if everyone earned the same? This

idea that everyone earns the same in socialism is far too widespread. Of course, socialist systems also have different salaries, salary increases, different positions in different professions, etc. It's not about everyone earning exactly the same, but about ensuring everyone's basic needs are met and that differences in pay don't lead to extreme inequalities, as is the

case in capitalism. For comparison, I'll just show you how much Jeff Bezos has earned since you started watching this video. Such inequality can never be justified by greater performance or harder work and should n't even be possible in our society. Capitalism promotes exactly what you say: you're a communist, but you have an iPhone. The classic example of

capitalism is: if you have an iPhone, or alternatively any other expensive product—laptops, PCs, cars, houses—I've heard all sorts of variations. The point is, when people make this argument, they're starting from a flawed premise: the idea that these products exist because of capitalism. That's wrong. Capitalism did n't create these products; labor did, using its own

labor. We've already established that innovation isn't a problem for socialism. So, if the innovation is there and the labor is there... So why shouldn't there be cell phones in socialism? The only remaining argument is that there are alternatives and that one should n't support a mega-corporation like Apple, which is even fair; I wouldn't either.

However, one must simultaneously realize that ethical consumption is impossible under a capitalist system. Every cell phone you own contains cobalt, which was probably mined by child laborers in the Congo who only receive pennies for it because it's more profitable. You ca n't consume 100% ethically in such a society unless you live in

a cabin in the woods without any modern technology and grow your own food. Then maybe. But as socialists, we want to bring about change and not hide somewhere in the woods. Therefore, it's by no means hypocritical to use the means given to us by the system to spread this message. Just ask the people

who lived under these states; they'll tell you how bad it was. This argument is used when one can't think of anything else and assumes that the people who experienced socialism would be on one's side. To that, I say, we can certainly do that. A quick overview of the GDR: In a 2009 survey, 57% of respondents said that

the GDR had more good than bad aspects. Soviet Union: 63% of Russians say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a bad thing. Interestingly, younger people who do n't know what it was like back then tend to see the collapse as something good, while older people who actually experienced the Soviet Union tend to wish for its return.

Hungary: 72% of Hungarians say that life is worse now than under communism. Romania: 63% say the same. Armenia: 66%. Moldova: 70%. Serbia: 81%. Bosnia: 77%. Montenegro: 65%. North Macedonia: 61%. Slovenia: 45%. In summary, in the vast majority of former socialist states, people are at least strongly divided about socialism, if they don't clearly prefer it to

the current system. Ostalgia and Yugoslavia are relevant phenomena for a reason. A unified rejection of socialism by the population, as anti-communists like to imagine, exists only in very few of these countries, for example, in the Baltic states, Turkmenistan, or Kosovo. That's all for now. I hope I was able to teach you something

and that you're now prepared should someone throw such arguments at you again. Thank you for watching.