Re 7:25 I want to emphasize how the 1:6 ratio at Mondragon is LOWEST to HIGHEST, while the 1:344 ratio in America is AVERAGE to AVERAGE (workers to CEOs), so the lowest-paid worker to the highest-paid CEO would be even MORE extreme.
Technically, Marx didn't say that the successful proletarian revolution is absolutely inevitable. He includes the alternative of the "common ruin of the contending classes". Something that merits reflection in the face of climate change.
It's gonna be weird teaching kindergarteners anti-communism. "Sharing is caring, but only if you get something out of it; you shouldn't care about others without the possibility of profit."
Just a friendly reminder that Marx isn’t responsible for how his word was interpreted and implemented by leaders around the world. Marx was not the leader of the USSR. Marx didn’t offer his ideas as an ALTERNATIVE to capitalism, only that socialism will follow once capitalism eventually destroys itself.
@@mullerpotgieter actually the opposite. He approached his thinking from a scientific point of view and more accurately predicted the world. Capitalism is failing and will collapse
The greatest scourge of humanity is not war, but inheritance. The principalities drop us into the meat grinder for their titles, land and resources. Even Jerusalem is a conflict of inheritance of the sons of Abraham. The rift between Shia and Sunni is over the inheritance of Muhamed. How exactly does one earn an inheritance? Inheritance violates the law of mutual exchange, vis-a-vis something for nothing. Even in America the lords of the land have horded and inherited all our resources. This rtump fellow and his donors aren't starting armed conflict over ethnicity per se, but the poor who are definetly being replaced by robots, and the more labor dependent middle class who happen to have second amendment rights, need to be purged before they are replaced. We can not give nooks to these people.
@@sussybaka3117 I'd say he's more controversial outside of academic circles. In science his contribution is still pretty common & validated. Outside of academics, people just go by propaganda they slurp up - which in capitalist regimes usually goes against him.
Yeah sorta, except that capital strength and investment facilitates smaller groups to form independant concensus, and avoid a homogenous and stagnant economy.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 you think you will own anything under Marxism?? Ph you will regret your words and you will be disappointed. If you think capitalism is using you wait till you know that work under marxism is none but slavery… ask ex communist countries people and they will tell you the same
@@SK_2521 too complicated for the average bolshovic to understand that way. But bros who love stocks are a thing and they are frequently bolshovics knowingly or not.
Marx was not the first to observe the class division of society, not the first person to observe how surplus capital is being extracted by the parasitic classes(capitalists,feudalists,slave owners etc). His real genius was to trace back the history of capitalism from a firm materialistic foundation. Which laid bare how exploitative the economic system was.
@mullerpotgieter scarcity in capitalism is a choice not a fact of life, that is the entire point. People saw that they were producing massively more but also getting comparatively poorer than their forefathers. It's not rocket science.
It’s amazing to buy into his theory you have to redefine so many words, including what capitalism even is, to make it make even basic sense. Like a cult.
That's correct, and Marx was wrong. Race and gender discrimination have their own history that are related to but distinct from class conflict and historical materialism. Legal traditions explicitly discriminated against women and people of color, so their subservience was not tied to their control of material resources but their lack of sociopolitical power and influence.
that’s intersectionality, like the video mentioned. you still shouldn’t necessarily assume it’s all due to class, but rather that it’s all connected. i haven’t watched their video on intersectionality, but if it’s anything like this one i’m sure it explains it well.
To my understanding, Marx didn’t really include race, gender, etc in his analysis. His primary argument was that what wage theft from the proletariat by the burgeoisie caused inequality, oppression, and class conflict. After all, everyone should fall between either the category of “owner” or “worker”. Others have developed Marx’s theories by including race or class in the analysis, such as Cedric Robinson and Silvia Federici.
@@steampunk_willyThe argument is that those legal frameworks develop *from* class and material bases. For example, much of patriarchy comes from a material desire to control the ability to produce new workers
Not necessarily just capitalism and the class system. He critiqued slavery and feudalism as well. His main critique was about power structure and hierarchies. Capitalism is just a further extension of those other hierarchical systems. And all of these systems oppressed the workers and elevated a few. Race and racism was created by slavers and capitalists to justify their positions of power over slaves (workers); race and racism was created to uphold the oppressors role as the ruler. I think a big thing Marx missed was the role of religion in history and the formation of these systems. Its role is huge in terms of sexism and the other aspects of intersectionality. But all of these systems were power struggles between the labourer and the person who owns (literally in slavery and feudalism) the laborer.
Our current oligarchy is the inevitable result of 100 years of an education system that avoided real talk about history and class at any cost (AP US history was/is pure propaganda, the pinnacle of our mis-education system). And Marx *does* point out sexism, that capitalism views women as property, that the traditional family is part of the problem.
@@AL-lh2htThey didn’t define oligarchy as rich people. They didn’t give a definition at all. They didn’t even say that the oligarchy was the result of capitalist exploitation. They just said it was the education system which avoided real history. I would disagree with this to an extent and say it has more to do with generational wealth over time which not only passes on wealth but networks, fame , influences, and practices that help one better survive in the market whether by means ethical or unethical.
Marxism lowers women to the point of being a child baring machine and a slave at the same time! You really think he liked women? He didn’t like his own self that dirty trash 🚽
Sexism, Homophobia, Racism, ect. are concepts that are bolstered by those in power to divide the working class. I have more in common with the average person in a different country than I do my own leaders and the super wealthy. The fight for equal rights across different identities is necessary for any class consciousnesses to develop in my opinion. Lenin held similar beliefs and was against anti antisemitism is a deeply antisemitic Europe.
That is definitely is a significant factors and intensifies those struggles, but i'll still stand for making a distinction here. Much along the lines of how Zizek talks about Mao's "On Contradiction".
I can't describe thw feeling of seeing a north american talking about Marx in a famous channel that isn't just doing ad hominem. Thank you for the very esucational video.
Ask yourself if this economy works for the majority of people. It’s not bad apples that ruin capitalism, corruption and exploitation are built into the system. It can’t function without a low wage worker class
Yes it does, capitalism lifted out of poverty millions. Only 10% of poverty globally since capitalism started and still decreasing, even with the govt interviening and regulating :D
You say this like capitalism has not brought the largest middle and upper class in history. And that before capitalism the middle class basically didn’t exist.
It does. It factually and demonstrably does work for the majority of people. And ironically you live in one of the demonstrably lowest corruption societies on Earth if you live in one of the contemporary "capitalist" systems that Marx predicted would collapse 120 years ago (still waiting on it, Marx; or was everyone just a part of the lumpenprole?)
Taking the time to understand Marxism outside of 'marxism bad' is more effort than the average human is willing to put in. It's easier to be told what to think by talking heads and social media.
The worst thing is that left leaning people have internalized the far right's demonizing of Marxism and Socialism and run like frightened cowards when they hear of either. Marx's critique of Capitalism is as valid as it ever was, and a robust dose of Socialism would certainly help this ailing society now.
His rightfully demonized because people did follow what he did, which lead to mass graves. Marx ignored human nature, it's what happens when you don't work full time with the common man...
"From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like good heads of the household, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition." - Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (1894)
Legit question, are we talking about communism or capitalism? Because in both cases it's a major uphill battle if the majority of trading partners (those holding resources you can not supply on your own) don't use the same system. You can hybridize your own system to make it work, but overall they don't get along.
@@LikelyToBeEatenByAGrue This isn’t true when humans are inherently uneducated and can’t think critically. Look how the US is slowly (or quickly) slipping into a fascist state. Would the average person benefit from fascism? No. Are they openly supporting it? Yeah.
You know capitalism literally suppressed, violently, the systems of monarchy and slavery (eventually) and to a lesser extent feudalism, and actively suppress their resurgence today, right?
@@johnyliltoeWhat legitimate reason does the U.S. have for its blockade of Cuba? It doesn't only not allow trade with Cuba, but because the electronic systems through which nearly every monetary exchange takes place are based in the United States, it prevents EVERY country from doing business with Cuba.
I'm not saying Marx was right. But when you open your eyes to it, it's concerning how often humanities problems seem to be due to the blind prioritization of profit or productivity over most other factors... Capitalism is actually responsible for a lot of contemporary issues. Like health care and education costs, which ripple on to affect people critical thinking, research, and decision making skills, which then affects voting choices, which perpetuates the system. It's like the Turkeys voting for Christmas because that pays for the turkey farms that feed and house them and protect them from all the wild animals that might eat them... And any minute step towards better living conditions at the farm like access to sunlight and more room to move around in is painted as a slippery slope to the inevitable cold starvation of the wilds followed by a wolfs jaws and an agonizing death.
One could argue that what generated those problems was actually our failure to consider inside our markets the variables needed to optimize our collective and individual decisions. If you suddenly give a market value to any kind of pollution and you have to pay the state an adapted tax to pollute, markets will distribute the incentives to the most efficient processes instead of doing it blindly by standard government regulations (and of course you'd need a strong judicial system to punish those who try to act outside of the legitimate markets). Let's not forget that at any time, voters can force their government to put in place strong social programs and still let it function in a capitalist system.
I’ve gotta admit that growing up, I think one thing that I struggled with when it came to critiques of capitalism was not realising the socialist influences that were already a part of modern capitalist society. Think stuff like trade unions and universal healthcare (I’m in Australia). I don’t know if this was a result of capitalists claiming these ideas or socialists advocating that we lived in a completely capitalist society (obviously it’s capitalist, but it seemed like it was never mentioned that some socialist influences were already there). So it ended up just feeling like there was no middle ground between capitalism and communism, which I imagine was the general public’s concern during the 20th century, of course bolstered by fear mongering politicians.
Pretty good episode. Crash Course Philosophy talked about harder concepts without having to be quite so hip about it. The most interesting question is, given that Crash Course is very often shown in high schools - how often is this episode (or this series) going to be banned?
Even if/tho sexism, racism, and homophobia are not directly caused by class struggle, you can be sure that those benefitting from capitalism (the 1%, and even a lot of the 50%) will worsen those issues. Because they stand to make even $1 from paying their workers less
Ooh I can’t wait to see what you have to say about anarchism! I haven’t watched crash course in a long time, but I watched absolutely every episode in the first 10 years. One of my all time favourites, so it’s interesting to see you discuss topics that I e done a lot of reading on. Because I tertiary studied chemistry and electrical engineering and still found those videos really informative and better than any lecture I ever had. Whereas since watching the philosophy episodes like well over 10 years ago now, I’ve done a lot of just personal learning in philosophy, politics and specifically Marxism. So I’ll be curious to see if I still learn something or if my personal study of a subject left me more knowledgeable than attending university.
I think as a rule needing context diminishes the strength of a philosophical argument But I think it bears repeating Marx wasn’t a nationalist or Russian leader. He wrote his work in the same London pub Charles Dickens wrote a Christmas Carol and his work was reaction to the same capitalist run workhouses that used child labour that dickens would decry. Because Marx’s work is a negative critique, and its narrative is rooted in the style of a historical dialectic essay it deserves that context. I’m glad at least this crash course frames Marx not with Lenin or Stalin but Hegel
Fun fact: Marx’s ideas were basically forgotten by most academics, but then the Russian Revolution happened. Lenin was a total Marx fanboy, and the whole revolution pretty much brought Marxism back from the dead. But I guess he never read Böhm-Bawerk, who completely destroyed Marx’s economic theory.
Regardless of my opinion of marx. The struggle in the relationship between wages and workers tends to be less severe as long as there is adequate competition which can only be maintained via govonment regulations.
Outsourcing at Mondragon wouldnt be a problem if those companies were also Co-ops, different countries will always be more cost effective in different ways wether there is a CEO at the top or a Workers Council.
But being cost-effective only matters because they are still competing against other companies, because they exist under capitalism. Turn all orgs in the supply chain into co-ops, and they will still be less efficient than competitors. This is why co-ops aren’t the answer to capitalist burdens. No matter how ethical your company may be, it will always fail under capitalism if it is not exploiting workers as much as a competitor. This is why only socialism will solve this. Workers owning the means of production will only be effective if those means are captured across the whole market. Otherwise, your ethical co-op will either fail or give into market pressures like the example here.
But the cheapness of labour in foreign states is only possible because of exploitation by the wealthy colonial states. If the countries of the world were all owned by, say, united, non-exploitative workers' councils, there would be no country to pull cheaper labour from because there would be no countries to exploit. However, in a world ran by workers' councils, there would also be no bourgeois capitalist companies out-competing co-ops by using exploited labour, meaning that co-ops would no longer need to exploit foreign workers to remain competitive.
A worker coop can still democratically decide to be exploited and beat its competition. There are only advantages to democratizing the workplace, which is why in a capitalist system, eventually all companies will be democratic.
Like the Swiss people decided not to have more than 4 weeks of paid leave to keep the economy afloat. Democratic systems can make self-sacrificing decisions for the good of the greater community.
Class solidarity also necessitates emancipation with the race, gender, sexual orientation struggle for equality. Your fellow workers are of an extremely diverse background in terms of intersectionality, but one thing they are not: Capital owners. And those struggles still share one more distinction. Slavoj Zizek points out a difference between class struggle and other emancipatory struggles: If in an emancipatory struggle like with race, or gender, the contradiction is ultimately sublated, then both parties of the struggle finally coexist with equal concrete freedoms, but still in full recognition of their identities (We're not abolishing the patriarchy by aboloshing either men or women as a group in and of themselves, but by equal rights and so on). In class struggle however, should it sublate in for example proletarian revolution, then the class divide vanishes, the owning class is "eradicated". Therein lies a fundamental difference, but this is not a justification for ignoring other emancipatory struggles.
Marx only laid claim to discovering 3 things. 1.) Classes only arise from the development of production. 2.) The class struggle will lead to the working class owning the means of production. 3.) This will lead to a classless society. Marx 1852
He was marginally correct on the first point, as people moved away from the accumulation of wealth defining classes and instead to the organization of value-generating systems. But then he was just wrong about the class struggle. Workers cared about working conditions, fought for them, and high living standards made the supposed struggle entirely moot because they have enough bargaining power on the individual level to, generally, progress economically in other ways.
@TvehX You have an interesting take on these three discoveries. Would you be willing to elaborate on what you mean by value-Gernerating system? Also, how high living standards have nullified the working class struggle?
@@TvehX Doesn't take into account Capitalist decay from things such as the decline of the rate of profit, will inevitably roll back certain benefits or try to push the contradictions more on the global scale
@@TvehX Don't let me pull up the stats on living standards. Living check to check is not a high standard of life and neither is working overtime just to buy the cheapest food. Many Americans can't even afford education and medicine, leave alone purchasing a house.
This is so true to what Lenin stated in the beginning of the first chapter of state and revolution. He was also damn right: “What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie.”
I both love and hate you guys. Why? Because this would've made my classes of political philosophy sooo much easier like 10 years ago. But I am loving the discussion and how it's presented.
I hate how some people are so focused on one type of inequality that they fight against solving other types of inequality. Let's work together to fix what we can, stop hamstringing efforts just because it isn't fixing the thing you've determined is the greater issue.
Thank you for making this episode about a complex and political topic such as this. Considering that there are people who go out of their way to distort the facts (especially a certain fake university that makes 5-minute videos). By the way, I wonder if you could make a video about Eduard Bernstein? He is another popoliticial philosopher who left an impact on politics that is still being felt to this day. ~Mackyle Conner Wotring
Agreed. Though, when you exchange a large pile of lumber for half a pig, would that kind of simple trade not be capitalism as well? Wood after all can be stored and accumulated, meat can not. I'm not saying you are wrong! I'm just suggesting that maybe it isn't as much capitalism but greed that made colonialism. Though you may argue that capitalism is in it self the basis for greed. Against which I'd argue that every exchange is equally fair and balanced as well as unfair and unbalanced. It all depends on the perspective. When I'm hungry then a pile of wood is less important than meat. Brings us back to Bezos and Musk. Is that too a matter of perspective on fair and unbalanced? Maybe as said in this video even within the employee owned factory there is room for a 6x salaray over the common worker. Thus maybe it isn't an issue with capitalism as a basis for greed and thus enabling colonialism but rather the size and scale. Greed knows no bounds. Maybe with a twist of mind I'd be able to imagine a form of greed that does not accumulate goods or money. People maybe. The more charismatic I get, the more disciples flock around me. The more people value my word, the more power I get. The more power I get, the less I want to lose it. The more fear of loss I get, the more I fear competitors. And here we'll have autocracies and dictatorships at its core.
The idea of applying democratic and republican ideals to the economy should not be viewed as controversial. Capitalism is inherently authoritarian and autocratic, concentrating power in the hands of a few. We must recognize this reality and work to make the economy more democratic by empowering workers through cooperatives and giving them ownership and control over their workplaces. We ought to try to maximize freedom whenever and wherever possible.
Nothing is stopping you from forming a workers' coop in any modern capitalist system. The reason why there are still so few (although their distribution vary significantly between industries, and countries for that matter) is because they fail to be as efficient and productive structures as "standard" corporations/businesses can be (the exception being some sectors of the service industry that never require economy of scale). Reasons are many, but two of the main explanations are : 1) by being in constant conflict of interests between your own as a worker and your own as business owner, you can't choose optimal strategies, and 2) unless your workers are already rich, your access to capital is limited, thus limiting investment opportunities. Capitalism works when in a balanced and well-regulated market (as little and as much regulation that is necessary to achieve common goals and an efficient market). The problem is not the theory or the basic system, it's how it's applied today: lack of controls against uncompetitive business practices, lack of equal access to education/training and financing, lack of transparency from all actors (private AND public)... Of course our markets can't run well in those conditions. This would most probably get worse if we moved away from capitalism without taking the time to address those problems first (and I would argue that once those problems are fixed, capitalism would be by far the best system we could devise).
Finally! Thank you.. how interesting that many politicians spoke out against (is that misinformation.. I digress…) Marx without actually reading his works past the notoriety of the communist manifesto (which was actually a debate and not a prescription for economic growth.. anyway- think critically- this is one idea (which you would have rarely heard about over the last century….
Wow I had no idea that Du Bois was accused of Marxism. I didn’t know what his politco-conomic stance was. I just knew about the NAACP and his sociology of race.
I love that you choose to follow Marx's critique of capitalism with cooperatives like Mondragon. That is the way to help people diassociate irrational fear of Soviet and totalitarianism from some of Marx's useful ideas.
Organizing in revolutionary spaces, learning the science of liberation, and getting to know people across my community and other communities, have all been so incredible to experience and deeply empowering. Through socialist organizing we have been able to help so many in our city. The houseless, people struggling with substance use, and so much more. The Marxists in my area have really made a tremendous effort to not only address but solve the problems our people. Grateful to live in an age where socialists are organizing strong, and where WE the people can protect the People. ❤
I think Marx did have a problem with class reductionism, and i think that's why a lot of non-leninist marxists usually employ more of the holistic analysis of the intersectionality of oppression that he began to develop later in life as he began to see that almost all forms of oppression come from dominating hierarchical relationships. Zoe Baker, a leading expert with a doctorate in the history of anarchism, talks a lot on her channel about not only anarchism, but also more libertarian forms of marxism. Libertarian in the classical sense, not the appropriated term used by the US's 'propertarians'.
One thing Marx got right "If proletariat doesn't rise - it is destroyed by the capital" and that's exactly what has happened - economical development destroyed proletariat as a class and replaced it with skilled workers and machines
But in his day and age, we had an overflowing of Skilled workers, and not enough automation. (Refering to College Graduate being McDonalds employee) Still we will reach the point mentioned some day
But the so-called "unskilled labour" has been exported oversees. Rather than capitalists exploiting the workers in their own country, they have exported their exploitation to workers in countries which are in turn exploited by the former colonial states which still enforce their will to exploit and re-colonise their former colonies.
@oooshafiqoooHow do you deal with your family? With your friends? With your neighbors? There is no state. No armed forces. No monopoly on violence. That's what Anarchism is.
@@mostm8589 I would like to add that most people indeed have a very hierarchical family structure. So the questions can backfire. Especially those who come from conservative households with strict dads that have supreme power , physically and economically and emotionally, won't see what you mean.
How does anarchism work at scale? From my understanding, all this will do is eventually re-produce openings in production that allow markets to emerge. This just creates similar conditions to what allowed capitalism to grow in the first place. I understand that anarchism might work in small communities, but I don’t understand the thinking that it can work at a full scale without some sort of centralized system to manage large scale production. I genuinely don’t know the anarchist theory here and would love to hear.
I think Marx is fundamental part of moving forward toward a better and more advanced society. However, this doesnt mean his words are gospel or that he had all the answers. But I sure know conservatism has got to take a back seat when it comes to our governance.
You should also talk about why most people (including Marxist) have not read Das Kapital from cover to cover. [Spoiler Alert] It's because it's a long boring economic thesis. Also it should be noted that the UK unions of Marx's era rejected the Communist Manifesto's call to arms of tearing down the establishment but instead took the path of negations with the establishments that may or may not involve strikes of workers in solidarity. The UK unions were wise enough not to bite the hand that feeds them. Furthermore the UK of Marx's era was more democratic than Engels' Germany and Marx's Russia.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Re 7:25 I want to emphasize how the 1:6 ratio at Mondragon is LOWEST to HIGHEST, while the 1:344 ratio in America is AVERAGE to AVERAGE (workers to CEOs), so the lowest-paid worker to the highest-paid CEO would be even MORE extreme.
Technically, Marx didn't say that the successful proletarian revolution is absolutely inevitable. He includes the alternative of the "common ruin of the contending classes". Something that merits reflection in the face of climate change.
It's gonna be weird teaching kindergarteners anti-communism. "Sharing is caring, but only if you get something out of it; you shouldn't care about others without the possibility of profit."
I suddenly feel inspired to seize the means of production
10:55 All struggle is exacerbated by class struggle. Racism, sexism etc. are 100% worse for working class people than the rich
Just a friendly reminder that Marx isn’t responsible for how his word was interpreted and implemented by leaders around the world. Marx was not the leader of the USSR. Marx didn’t offer his ideas as an ALTERNATIVE to capitalism, only that socialism will follow once capitalism eventually destroys itself.
Almost like his idea was garbage from the start and glosses over basic human behaviours
In fact, he famously hated people that called themselves Marxists while he was still alive.
@@mullerpotgieterread Dawn of Everything and come back
No , but ur comment explains ur Comment lol@mullerpotgieter
@@mullerpotgieter actually the opposite. He approached his thinking from a scientific point of view and more accurately predicted the world. Capitalism is failing and will collapse
Marx may not have predicted the internet or cell phone, but he sure was correct about capitalism and class warfare.
@@Lack_Of_Interest he discussed increasing automation in Das Kapital
Yes like revolution starting in the richest countries like America and The UK not the poorest like Russia or China. lol
Also, interestingly it is not possible to predict the future.
The greatest scourge of humanity is not war, but inheritance. The principalities drop us into the meat grinder for their titles, land and resources. Even Jerusalem is a conflict of inheritance of the sons of Abraham. The rift between Shia and Sunni is over the inheritance of Muhamed. How exactly does one earn an inheritance? Inheritance violates the law of mutual exchange, vis-a-vis something for nothing. Even in America the lords of the land have horded and inherited all our resources. This rtump fellow and his donors aren't starting armed conflict over ethnicity per se, but the poor who are definetly being replaced by robots, and the more labor dependent middle class who happen to have second amendment rights, need to be purged before they are replaced. We can not give nooks to these people.
I’ve never met someone who truly hated Marx who is actually educated about his theories and writings.
Well… let’s just say, most anarchist would side with Bakunin in their conflict with Marx.
Marx, as a human being, friend, father, son, and husband, was just a terrible person, writing aside.
he had no sense of fashion
i don't hate Marx, i hate marxists
I'd go even further, I've never met any non-Academic Marxists that are educated about his theories or writings. Dude can't catch a break.
It is definitely brave of the channel to leave this comments section open
How so?
And doesn't that observation speak volumes!
@@tuckersabath2099 Marx is still quite the controversial topic. In academic circles, its like making a post about trump or biden.
What are you talking about? RUclips is a predominantly leftwing platform
@@sussybaka3117 I'd say he's more controversial outside of academic circles. In science his contribution is still pretty common & validated. Outside of academics, people just go by propaganda they slurp up - which in capitalist regimes usually goes against him.
this makes me so happy to see ppl being somewhat cordial in the comments
What does "cordial" mean?
Oh no, the workers owning the means of production! God forbid we take that away from capital owners.
Yeah sorta, except that capital strength and investment facilitates smaller groups to form independant concensus, and avoid a homogenous and stagnant economy.
That's what the stock market is for - just buy some shares
😂😂😂😂😂😂 you think you will own anything under Marxism?? Ph you will regret your words and you will be disappointed. If you think capitalism is using you wait till you know that work under marxism is none but slavery… ask ex communist countries people and they will tell you the same
@@SK_2521 You need money first.
@@SK_2521 too complicated for the average bolshovic to understand that way. But bros who love stocks are a thing and they are frequently bolshovics knowingly or not.
Marx was not the first to observe the class division of society, not the first person to observe how surplus capital is being extracted by the parasitic classes(capitalists,feudalists,slave owners etc). His real genius was to trace back the history of capitalism from a firm materialistic foundation. Which laid bare how exploitative the economic system was.
By "firm materialistic foundation", do you mean that resource scarcity is a thing?
@mullerpotgieter scarcity in capitalism is a choice not a fact of life, that is the entire point. People saw that they were producing massively more but also getting comparatively poorer than their forefathers. It's not rocket science.
@@mullerpotgieter scarcity of human product is human made. Just like the product.
It’s amazing to buy into his theory you have to redefine so many words, including what capitalism even is, to make it make even basic sense. Like a cult.
@@darrens3And?? Would you prefer to live a pre-stone age existence?
11:26 from my understanding Marx's argument was that all of these issues and forms of discrimination were a result of capitalism and the class system.
That's correct, and Marx was wrong. Race and gender discrimination have their own history that are related to but distinct from class conflict and historical materialism. Legal traditions explicitly discriminated against women and people of color, so their subservience was not tied to their control of material resources but their lack of sociopolitical power and influence.
that’s intersectionality, like the video mentioned. you still shouldn’t necessarily assume it’s all due to class, but rather that it’s all connected. i haven’t watched their video on intersectionality, but if it’s anything like this one i’m sure it explains it well.
To my understanding, Marx didn’t really include race, gender, etc in his analysis. His primary argument was that what wage theft from the proletariat by the burgeoisie caused inequality, oppression, and class conflict. After all, everyone should fall between either the category of “owner” or “worker”. Others have developed Marx’s theories by including race or class in the analysis, such as Cedric Robinson and Silvia Federici.
@@steampunk_willyThe argument is that those legal frameworks develop *from* class and material bases. For example, much of patriarchy comes from a material desire to control the ability to produce new workers
Not necessarily just capitalism and the class system. He critiqued slavery and feudalism as well. His main critique was about power structure and hierarchies. Capitalism is just a further extension of those other hierarchical systems. And all of these systems oppressed the workers and elevated a few. Race and racism was created by slavers and capitalists to justify their positions of power over slaves (workers); race and racism was created to uphold the oppressors role as the ruler. I think a big thing Marx missed was the role of religion in history and the formation of these systems. Its role is huge in terms of sexism and the other aspects of intersectionality. But all of these systems were power struggles between the labourer and the person who owns (literally in slavery and feudalism) the laborer.
Our current oligarchy is the inevitable result of 100 years of an education system that avoided real talk about history and class at any cost (AP US history was/is pure propaganda, the pinnacle of our mis-education system).
And Marx *does* point out sexism, that capitalism views women as property, that the traditional family is part of the problem.
You cant even define oligarchy, hint it does not mean “rich person”.
It’s amazing that all the communist countries became so sexiest then
Super stars like facilitang their own conquests. But yes you should not treat anyone as your posession.
@@AL-lh2htThey didn’t define oligarchy as rich people. They didn’t give a definition at all. They didn’t even say that the oligarchy was the result of capitalist exploitation. They just said it was the education system which avoided real history. I would disagree with this to an extent and say it has more to do with generational wealth over time which not only passes on wealth but networks, fame , influences, and practices that help one better survive in the market whether by means ethical or unethical.
Marxism lowers women to the point of being a child baring machine and a slave at the same time! You really think he liked women? He didn’t like his own self that dirty trash 🚽
Sexism, Homophobia, Racism, ect. are concepts that are bolstered by those in power to divide the working class. I have more in common with the average person in a different country than I do my own leaders and the super wealthy. The fight for equal rights across different identities is necessary for any class consciousnesses to develop in my opinion. Lenin held similar beliefs and was against anti antisemitism is a deeply antisemitic Europe.
Yes.
„The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude.“ - Kwame Ture
That is definitely is a significant factors and intensifies those struggles, but i'll still stand for making a distinction here. Much along the lines of how Zizek talks about Mao's "On Contradiction".
I can't describe thw feeling of seeing a north american talking about Marx in a famous channel that isn't just doing ad hominem.
Thank you for the very esucational video.
Care Bears: Sharing is caring!
McCarthy: Blacklist the Care Bears! They’re clearly communists!
Ask yourself if this economy works for the majority of people. It’s not bad apples that ruin capitalism, corruption and exploitation are built into the system. It can’t function without a low wage worker class
Its called automation
@@mullerpotgieter Very true. Eventually those workers won't even have their wages to keep them going!
Yes it does, capitalism lifted out of poverty millions. Only 10% of poverty globally since capitalism started and still decreasing, even with the govt interviening and regulating :D
You say this like capitalism has not brought the largest middle and upper class in history. And that before capitalism the middle class basically didn’t exist.
It does. It factually and demonstrably does work for the majority of people. And ironically you live in one of the demonstrably lowest corruption societies on Earth if you live in one of the contemporary "capitalist" systems that Marx predicted would collapse 120 years ago (still waiting on it, Marx; or was everyone just a part of the lumpenprole?)
most of the people that criticize the Marxism dont even know Marxism
Taking the time to understand Marxism outside of 'marxism bad' is more effort than the average human is willing to put in. It's easier to be told what to think by talking heads and social media.
Like most of the suporters of marxism arent economists.
@@Beefinator5000where were you first exposed to marxism? Home or school? Very few of us are experts.
That is why i studied Marxism, to make sure i know what i am against
@oooshafiqooo then what are the good things about socialism, in your view?
The worst thing is that left leaning people have internalized the far right's demonizing of Marxism and Socialism and run like frightened cowards when they hear of either. Marx's critique of Capitalism is as valid as it ever was, and a robust dose of Socialism would certainly help this ailing society now.
lol I guess you never read Böhm-Bawerk
+++
It's more like that Marxism is seen as very big government and most leftists are more like anarchists.
Otherwise known as: liberalism. They haven't internalised conservatism, it's just their ideology. Liberals aren't Marxists
His rightfully demonized because people did follow what he did, which lead to mass graves. Marx ignored human nature, it's what happens when you don't work full time with the common man...
i hope you'll have a video on anarchy aswell
edit: guess i should have waited until the end see yall next week comrades 🖤💜
I was excited for this video, and I'm even more excited for the next one! 🏴
I hope they talk about Rojava in detail! it's not perfect but it's a fascinating case study
hell yeah anarchy!
🏴🏴🏴
"From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like good heads of the household, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition." - Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (1894)
Absolute banger of a video. Massive W for CrashCourse.
thank you, crashcourse
You know your economic system is healthy when you have to mandate the suppression of any other systems.
Legit question, are we talking about communism or capitalism? Because in both cases it's a major uphill battle if the majority of trading partners (those holding resources you can not supply on your own) don't use the same system. You can hybridize your own system to make it work, but overall they don't get along.
@@LikelyToBeEatenByAGrue This isn’t true when humans are inherently uneducated and can’t think critically. Look how the US is slowly (or quickly) slipping into a fascist state. Would the average person benefit from fascism? No. Are they openly supporting it? Yeah.
I mean both systems are fundamentally opposed to eachother.
As long as capitalism exists, so will exploitation.
You know capitalism literally suppressed, violently, the systems of monarchy and slavery (eventually) and to a lesser extent feudalism, and actively suppress their resurgence today, right?
@@johnyliltoeWhat legitimate reason does the U.S. have for its blockade of Cuba?
It doesn't only not allow trade with Cuba, but because the electronic systems through which nearly every monetary exchange takes place are based in the United States, it prevents EVERY country from doing business with Cuba.
Thanks!
I'm not saying Marx was right. But when you open your eyes to it, it's concerning how often humanities problems seem to be due to the blind prioritization of profit or productivity over most other factors...
Capitalism is actually responsible for a lot of contemporary issues. Like health care and education costs, which ripple on to affect people critical thinking, research, and decision making skills, which then affects voting choices, which perpetuates the system.
It's like the Turkeys voting for Christmas because that pays for the turkey farms that feed and house them and protect them from all the wild animals that might eat them... And any minute step towards better living conditions at the farm like access to sunlight and more room to move around in is painted as a slippery slope to the inevitable cold starvation of the wilds followed by a wolfs jaws and an agonizing death.
One could argue that what generated those problems was actually our failure to consider inside our markets the variables needed to optimize our collective and individual decisions. If you suddenly give a market value to any kind of pollution and you have to pay the state an adapted tax to pollute, markets will distribute the incentives to the most efficient processes instead of doing it blindly by standard government regulations (and of course you'd need a strong judicial system to punish those who try to act outside of the legitimate markets).
Let's not forget that at any time, voters can force their government to put in place strong social programs and still let it function in a capitalist system.
Thank you for making this video! It’s so hard to find unbiased content about Marx… he doesn’t sound like such a bad guy.😅
I’ve gotta admit that growing up, I think one thing that I struggled with when it came to critiques of capitalism was not realising the socialist influences that were already a part of modern capitalist society.
Think stuff like trade unions and universal healthcare (I’m in Australia). I don’t know if this was a result of capitalists claiming these ideas or socialists advocating that we lived in a completely capitalist society (obviously it’s capitalist, but it seemed like it was never mentioned that some socialist influences were already there).
So it ended up just feeling like there was no middle ground between capitalism and communism, which I imagine was the general public’s concern during the 20th century, of course bolstered by fear mongering politicians.
new, fresh and accurate marxist educational videos on my youtube recommendations page?! oh boy did christmas come early this year, comrades!
Pretty good episode. Crash Course Philosophy talked about harder concepts without having to be quite so hip about it. The most interesting question is, given that Crash Course is very often shown in high schools - how often is this episode (or this series) going to be banned?
Even if/tho sexism, racism, and homophobia are not directly caused by class struggle, you can be sure that those benefitting from capitalism (the 1%, and even a lot of the 50%) will worsen those issues. Because they stand to make even $1 from paying their workers less
Ooh I can’t wait to see what you have to say about anarchism! I haven’t watched crash course in a long time, but I watched absolutely every episode in the first 10 years. One of my all time favourites, so it’s interesting to see you discuss topics that I e done a lot of reading on. Because I tertiary studied chemistry and electrical engineering and still found those videos really informative and better than any lecture I ever had. Whereas since watching the philosophy episodes like well over 10 years ago now, I’ve done a lot of just personal learning in philosophy, politics and specifically Marxism. So I’ll be curious to see if I still learn something or if my personal study of a subject left me more knowledgeable than attending university.
I think as a rule needing context diminishes the strength of a philosophical argument
But I think it bears repeating Marx wasn’t a nationalist or Russian leader. He wrote his work in the same London pub Charles Dickens wrote a Christmas Carol and his work was reaction to the same capitalist run workhouses that used child labour that dickens would decry.
Because Marx’s work is a negative critique, and its narrative is rooted in the style of a historical dialectic essay it deserves that context.
I’m glad at least this crash course frames Marx not with Lenin or Stalin but Hegel
I have the perfect friend to send this too. Love the clocks. I am in the LA time zone but hundreds of miles closer to Missoula. 😊
That was actually quite a good break down for a 13 minute video. Well done.
You need to do a second U.S. history course, bringing it up to date.
yes! I love that you highlighted Mondragons!
we still talk about him cause he is overall pretty based. Not perfect but definitely better than the current way of the world.
Fun fact: Marx’s ideas were basically forgotten by most academics, but then the Russian Revolution happened. Lenin was a total Marx fanboy, and the whole revolution pretty much brought Marxism back from the dead. But I guess he never read Böhm-Bawerk, who completely destroyed Marx’s economic theory.
Regardless of my opinion of marx. The struggle in the relationship between wages and workers tends to be less severe as long as there is adequate competition which can only be maintained via govonment regulations.
Excellent video , makes me want to finally read my copy of Das Kapital !
This was really well done. Thank you.
In case you don't know, the channel Epic Rap Battles of History has a great one in which Henry Ford faces Karl Marx.
Epic.
Outsourcing at Mondragon wouldnt be a problem if those companies were also Co-ops, different countries will always be more cost effective in different ways wether there is a CEO at the top or a Workers Council.
But being cost-effective only matters because they are still competing against other companies, because they exist under capitalism. Turn all orgs in the supply chain into co-ops, and they will still be less efficient than competitors.
This is why co-ops aren’t the answer to capitalist burdens. No matter how ethical your company may be, it will always fail under capitalism if it is not exploiting workers as much as a competitor.
This is why only socialism will solve this. Workers owning the means of production will only be effective if those means are captured across the whole market. Otherwise, your ethical co-op will either fail or give into market pressures like the example here.
But the cheapness of labour in foreign states is only possible because of exploitation by the wealthy colonial states. If the countries of the world were all owned by, say, united, non-exploitative workers' councils, there would be no country to pull cheaper labour from because there would be no countries to exploit. However, in a world ran by workers' councils, there would also be no bourgeois capitalist companies out-competing co-ops by using exploited labour, meaning that co-ops would no longer need to exploit foreign workers to remain competitive.
A worker coop can still democratically decide to be exploited and beat its competition. There are only advantages to democratizing the workplace, which is why in a capitalist system, eventually all companies will be democratic.
Like the Swiss people decided not to have more than 4 weeks of paid leave to keep the economy afloat. Democratic systems can make self-sacrificing decisions for the good of the greater community.
Class solidarity also necessitates emancipation with the race, gender, sexual orientation struggle for equality. Your fellow workers are of an extremely diverse background in terms of intersectionality, but one thing they are not: Capital owners. And those struggles still share one more distinction. Slavoj Zizek points out a difference between class struggle and other emancipatory struggles: If in an emancipatory struggle like with race, or gender, the contradiction is ultimately sublated, then both parties of the struggle finally coexist with equal concrete freedoms, but still in full recognition of their identities (We're not abolishing the patriarchy by aboloshing either men or women as a group in and of themselves, but by equal rights and so on). In class struggle however, should it sublate in for example proletarian revolution, then the class divide vanishes, the owning class is "eradicated". Therein lies a fundamental difference, but this is not a justification for ignoring other emancipatory struggles.
Marx only laid claim to discovering 3 things.
1.) Classes only arise from the development of production.
2.) The class struggle will lead to the working class owning the means of production.
3.) This will lead to a classless society.
Marx 1852
He was marginally correct on the first point, as people moved away from the accumulation of wealth defining classes and instead to the organization of value-generating systems. But then he was just wrong about the class struggle. Workers cared about working conditions, fought for them, and high living standards made the supposed struggle entirely moot because they have enough bargaining power on the individual level to, generally, progress economically in other ways.
@TvehX You have an interesting take on these three discoveries. Would you be willing to elaborate on what you mean by value-Gernerating system? Also, how high living standards have nullified the working class struggle?
@@TvehX Doesn't take into account Capitalist decay from things such as the decline of the rate of profit, will inevitably roll back certain benefits or try to push the contradictions more on the global scale
@@TvehX Don't let me pull up the stats on living standards.
Living check to check is not a high standard of life and neither is working overtime just to buy the cheapest food.
Many Americans can't even afford education and medicine, leave alone purchasing a house.
This is so true to what Lenin stated in the beginning of the first chapter of state and revolution. He was also damn right:
“What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie.”
Fantastic summary, though of course there are aspects which I wish could have gone a bit deeper. But that's not the point of Crash Course, is it? :)
I both love and hate you guys. Why? Because this would've made my classes of political philosophy sooo much easier like 10 years ago. But I am loving the discussion and how it's presented.
Looking forward to Pytor Kropotkin and his Anarchist Morality being discussed in the next video.
Thanks for the video. Please make a crash course on cultural anthropology.
Nice summary. I do encourage the reading of Joseph Schumpeter's perspective on Karl Marx.
I hate how some people are so focused on one type of inequality that they fight against solving other types of inequality. Let's work together to fix what we can, stop hamstringing efforts just because it isn't fixing the thing you've determined is the greater issue.
Very well done, thank you for just engaging with the ideas rather than falling into the usual trap of having to disavow everything every 5 seconds
Great video!
I've never heard any of that anti marx criticism from a REAL person
Thank you for making this episode about a complex and political topic such as this. Considering that there are people who go out of their way to distort the facts (especially a certain fake university that makes 5-minute videos). By the way, I wonder if you could make a video about Eduard Bernstein? He is another popoliticial philosopher who left an impact on politics that is still being felt to this day.
~Mackyle Conner Wotring
We need to seize the means of production.
I don't know much about marxists, but I do know that Groucho is my favourite.
as you mention CC sociology, it's worth mentioning that Karl Marx basically invented sociology
Thanks for this work!
Coffee 🍵🍵 part is interesting 😅
This is amazing. Thank you for sharing! I love these videos so very much!
The fact wizcrack isn’t co hosting this episode makes me sad lol
Trivia: it was Marx who coined the term "Capialism."
The initial use of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense is attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850
Thank you Crash Course for cutting through decades of US capitalist indoctrination and propaganda to bring us a fair explanation of Marxism 🙏🏽
Do Fukuyama next (you actually better include Acemoglu at some point)
Finally someone just explains it instead of telling me to read theory. Thank you.
Oh I would’ve liked it if you went into materialism more.
Nice Vid ❤
There's a very strong link to the origins or colonialism, imperialism and capitalism. Just saying
Agreed.
Though, when you exchange a large pile of lumber for half a pig, would that kind of simple trade not be capitalism as well? Wood after all can be stored and accumulated, meat can not.
I'm not saying you are wrong! I'm just suggesting that maybe it isn't as much capitalism but greed that made colonialism. Though you may argue that capitalism is in it self the basis for greed. Against which I'd argue that every exchange is equally fair and balanced as well as unfair and unbalanced. It all depends on the perspective. When I'm hungry then a pile of wood is less important than meat.
Brings us back to Bezos and Musk. Is that too a matter of perspective on fair and unbalanced? Maybe as said in this video even within the employee owned factory there is room for a 6x salaray over the common worker. Thus maybe it isn't an issue with capitalism as a basis for greed and thus enabling colonialism but rather the size and scale. Greed knows no bounds.
Maybe with a twist of mind I'd be able to imagine a form of greed that does not accumulate goods or money. People maybe. The more charismatic I get, the more disciples flock around me. The more people value my word, the more power I get. The more power I get, the less I want to lose it. The more fear of loss I get, the more I fear competitors. And here we'll have autocracies and dictatorships at its core.
The idea of applying democratic and republican ideals to the economy should not be viewed as controversial. Capitalism is inherently authoritarian and autocratic, concentrating power in the hands of a few. We must recognize this reality and work to make the economy more democratic by empowering workers through cooperatives and giving them ownership and control over their workplaces. We ought to try to maximize freedom whenever and wherever possible.
+++
Nothing is stopping you from forming a workers' coop in any modern capitalist system. The reason why there are still so few (although their distribution vary significantly between industries, and countries for that matter) is because they fail to be as efficient and productive structures as "standard" corporations/businesses can be (the exception being some sectors of the service industry that never require economy of scale).
Reasons are many, but two of the main explanations are : 1) by being in constant conflict of interests between your own as a worker and your own as business owner, you can't choose optimal strategies, and 2) unless your workers are already rich, your access to capital is limited, thus limiting investment opportunities.
Capitalism works when in a balanced and well-regulated market (as little and as much regulation that is necessary to achieve common goals and an efficient market). The problem is not the theory or the basic system, it's how it's applied today: lack of controls against uncompetitive business practices, lack of equal access to education/training and financing, lack of transparency from all actors (private AND public)... Of course our markets can't run well in those conditions. This would most probably get worse if we moved away from capitalism without taking the time to address those problems first (and I would argue that once those problems are fixed, capitalism would be by far the best system we could devise).
Mondrogon has a buy in stake of 16,000 Euros. This may be why they employ a lot of contract workers.
Finally! Thank you.. how interesting that many politicians spoke out against (is that misinformation.. I digress…) Marx without actually reading his works past the notoriety of the communist manifesto (which was actually a debate and not a prescription for economic growth.. anyway- think critically- this is one idea (which you would have rarely heard about over the last century….
Wow I had no idea that Du Bois was accused of Marxism. I didn’t know what his politco-conomic stance was. I just knew about the NAACP and his sociology of race.
Thurgood Marshall ran him out of naacp bc this. Dubois visited Nazi Germany and supported Woodrow Wilson as well.
Du Bous was an avid socialist, like most of the great black organizers and thinkers of the late-19th and 20th centuries
accused? he was an outright communist. i say that positively.
Only seen the race & gender factor used in conjunction with marxist critique, not against it.
I love that you choose to follow Marx's critique of capitalism with cooperatives like Mondragon. That is the way to help people diassociate irrational fear of Soviet and totalitarianism from some of Marx's useful ideas.
Excellent introduction to Marxism…thanks for sharing.
I liked the conclussion
Organizing in revolutionary spaces, learning the science of liberation, and getting to know people across my community and other communities, have all been so incredible to experience and deeply empowering.
Through socialist organizing we have been able to help so many in our city. The houseless, people struggling with substance use, and so much more.
The Marxists in my area have really made a tremendous effort to not only address but solve the problems our people.
Grateful to live in an age where socialists are organizing strong, and where WE the people can protect the People. ❤
I think Marx did have a problem with class reductionism, and i think that's why a lot of non-leninist marxists usually employ more of the holistic analysis of the intersectionality of oppression that he began to develop later in life as he began to see that almost all forms of oppression come from dominating hierarchical relationships. Zoe Baker, a leading expert with a doctorate in the history of anarchism, talks a lot on her channel about not only anarchism, but also more libertarian forms of marxism. Libertarian in the classical sense, not the appropriated term used by the US's 'propertarians'.
Libertarian Socialists are the only true Libertarians! ✊️
You didn't read Marx and don't understand Marxism
Thank you!
Loved this video, so so pumped for the anarchism video!!
Great video! Thanks for making it 😊
She's awesome!! Great content. 💪🏻
great video :))
Yup, its happening today, like actually.
One thing Marx got right "If proletariat doesn't rise - it is destroyed by the capital" and that's exactly what has happened - economical development destroyed proletariat as a class and replaced it with skilled workers and machines
But in his day and age, we had an overflowing of Skilled workers, and not enough automation. (Refering to College Graduate being McDonalds employee)
Still we will reach the point mentioned some day
And those workers are treated and paid like proles by the capitaists
But the so-called "unskilled labour" has been exported oversees. Rather than capitalists exploiting the workers in their own country, they have exported their exploitation to workers in countries which are in turn exploited by the former colonial states which still enforce their will to exploit and re-colonise their former colonies.
who owns the machines?
Anarchism rocks!!! ✊🏼🏴✊🏾🚩✊🏻🏴✊🏿🚩✊🏽🏴
Describe anarchism
@oooshafiqoooHow do you deal with your family? With your friends? With your neighbors?
There is no state. No armed forces. No monopoly on violence. That's what Anarchism is.
@@mostm8589
I would like to add that most people indeed have a very hierarchical family structure. So the questions can backfire. Especially those who come from conservative households with strict dads that have supreme power , physically and economically and emotionally, won't see what you mean.
How does anarchism work at scale?
From my understanding, all this will do is eventually re-produce openings in production that allow markets to emerge. This just creates similar conditions to what allowed capitalism to grow in the first place.
I understand that anarchism might work in small communities, but I don’t understand the thinking that it can work at a full scale without some
sort of centralized system to manage large scale production.
I genuinely don’t know the anarchist theory here and would love to hear.
@oooshafiqooo An ideology that believes in abolishing all hierarchical power structures and the creation of horizontal democratic power structures.
Comments here gonna be wiild 🔥
What's wrong with commumism?
Grande!! ❤
ayy mr marx pfp
The more you read Marx the more you start believing and unlearning everything you learnt
The problem isnt the peons, it's the billionaires.
There is some evidence that billionaires come about via state intervention, e.g government contracts and the like
I think Marx is fundamental part of moving forward toward a better and more advanced society. However, this doesnt mean his words are gospel or that he had all the answers. But I sure know conservatism has got to take a back seat when it comes to our governance.
Thank you very much
You should also talk about why most people (including Marxist) have not read Das Kapital from cover to cover. [Spoiler Alert] It's because it's a long boring economic thesis.
Also it should be noted that the UK unions of Marx's era rejected the Communist Manifesto's call to arms of tearing down the establishment but instead took the path of negations with the establishments that may or may not involve strikes of workers in solidarity. The UK unions were wise enough not to bite the hand that feeds them. Furthermore the UK of Marx's era was more democratic than Engels' Germany and Marx's Russia.
Ellie in a Crash Course , AMAZING!!!
Let's GO!
So many people talk about Karl Marx (pro or against) and never studied anything he wrote, or the authors that preceded him.