Who's Afraid of Marx?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Who's Afraid of Karl Marx?
Karl Marx has become something of a philosophical boogeyman these days. His work, we’re told, calls for violent revolution, totalitarian states, and so on. But what if we’re getting Marx all wrong? What if his theories were far less prescriptive than we’ve been led to believe? We’ll explain in this Wisecrack Edition: Everyone’s Wrong About Marx.
The German Ideology: A New Abridgement by Tom Whyman www.amazon.com...
Support us on Patreon! ► / wisecrack
Join this channel to get access to perks ► / @wisecrackedu
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
Nihilism: Are We Missing The Point? ► • Nihilism: Are We Missi...
Is Everything Fascist? ► • Is Everything Fascist?
Are Americans Bad At Philosophy? ► • Pragmatism: The Most A...
Written by Amanda Scherker
Researched by Tom Whyman
Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Edited by Jackson Maher
Produced by Olivia Redden
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#Marxism #philosophy #wisecrack
© 2023 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming
"We are living in a material world, and I am a material girl" - Marx, probably
Now that's in my head. Thanks.
@@SamBeck6090 "can't get a job cuz I ain't got a car." Proles everywhere, definitely
@@Charles37400 song lyrics viewed jokingly (but not actually jokingly) viewed through a Marxist lense.
😂😝🤣💀💀💀
@@Charles37400 This is a line you hear a lot from NPCs who work as prostitutes in Novigrad in The Witcher 3.
Marx's biggest haters are those who haven't read a single line
This is usually the case.
I guess he's just been misunderstood all those times his ideas have been used to justify oppression, starvation, state sponsored murder & all around misery.
@@WisecrackEDU
Marx's biggest idolizers are those who haven't actually read his works and attempt to digest anything he is actually saying...
But will only listen to other Pro-Marx idolizers that will intentionally leave out his calls for the annihilation of the " bourgeoisie" and pure terror in order for his "great ideas" to be established.. Which almost always leads to mass murder of classes and races that are deemed a threat to the dictatorship of the proletariat.. Regardless if they are "working class."
Annihilation of the "bourgeoisie" and pure terror ---> What Marx called "Revolutionary Holocaust."
Most of Marx's fanboys haven't read his material either. If Karl's book "On the Jewish Question" was more well read, there would be far fewer Marxists in this world.
@@BidenAKAP3D0Peter have you read it? Because what you're implying about it makes it clear you haven't
Strange that all of these GOP politicians don’t believe in the 2nd amendment like Karl Marx did.
And are GOP Marxist?
Amen
@@throwfascistsintopits3062 The GOP are not Marxist, but GOP pundits often employ Marxist arguments while calling Marx and Marxism evil.
The Marxist arguments are often then steered towards an irrational conclusion.
The most obvious example is immigration. Some arguments made are nearly word for word similar to Engels and Lenin to such a degree I don’t think it’s an accident.
In fact, when GOP pundits go overboard even CATO and Mises foundation has enough intellectual integrity to call such pundits idiots.
Definitely one of my favorite Wisecrack videos and one of the best basic discussions of Marx I've seen on youtube. I think one implication of these ideas (at least as I understand them) could have been made explicit in the video: using Marx as a tool for understanding the current situation, with the goal of making things better for everyone, will necessarily lead to a politics of revolution. That does not necessarily mean a Leninist or Maoist style revolution. But it certainly means radically altering society so that the powerful are stripped of power. And they won't be too likely to go along with the change happily. So they will do everything they can to co-opt and distract us (which I think is a major reason so much of modern pop culture, journalism, and politics work the way they do). But if that fails, crushing violence by the capitalist state will be directed against anyone who advocates for change -- as history from the German revolution to the Black Panthers shows so clearly. We need to be figuring out ways to deal with that.
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state.
@arkology_city
"...in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
Did you not actually read the next paragraph? I presume you didn't. Or, if you did, I presume you have limited reading comprehension. Supposing you have sufficient reading comprehension to grok what is being said there, I can only assume that your arguments are in terrible faith, and are innately subversive, or are engrained in your psyche after years of indoctrinal teachings.
But all right... let's presume that you just have a primary-school level of reading comprehension. Allow me: the state would be a temporary apparatus, meant to transition, by granting power to humans, rather than corporate conglomerates and the rich people who get more rich by virtue of already being rich... generally, by birthright. Once the apparatus has served the purpose of giving the power to the people, the apparatus of the state becomes largely redundant, as the people have the power. This, in effect, means that to transition, the final act would be to disband the state, or at least, the parts of the state that concern themselves with the needs of the owner class and the working class, as the classes no longer exist, and there are just people.
There, I did the hard work of interpreting it for you, because you couldn't actually read more than just the one word, and got stuck on it.
Thanks Wisecrack, this is a great video. I come from a family that is usually receptive to new ideas. It has been interesting compared to my partner's family, who are very successful business people. Her father recently explained to her brother that unions are a good thing, because they can help the individual increase their own capital. Initially her brother was anti-union because he interpreted it as being "communist". Hopefully more people can see this video and become aware of how Marx's ideas can benefit society and not just be used to create a totalitarian hell.
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state.
@arkology_city
"...in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
Did you not actually read the next paragraph? I presume you didn't. Or, if you did, I presume you have limited reading comprehension. Supposing you have sufficient reading comprehension to grok what is being said there, I can only assume that your arguments are in terrible faith, and are innately subversive, or are engrained in your psyche after years of indoctrinal teachings.
But all right... let's presume that you just have a primary-school level of reading comprehension. Allow me: the state would be a temporary apparatus, meant to transition, by granting power to humans, rather than corporate conglomerates and the rich people who get more rich by virtue of already being rich... generally, by birthright. Once the apparatus has served the purpose of giving the power to the people, the apparatus of the state becomes largely redundant, as the people have the power. This, in effect, means that to transition, the final act would be to disband the state, or at least, the parts of the state that concern themselves with the needs of the owner class and the working class, as the classes no longer exist, and there are just people.
There, I did the hard work of interpreting it for you, because you couldn't actually read more than just the one word, and got stuck on it.
@@SeanJMayThe ruling class just sweeps away all concept of class ?Sounds like a really big hand wave.
I think history has told us that the ruling class will stay in power because of how they justify it to themselves as having the eternal need to suppress the rebels by force and propaganda.
Michael is ferociously based for advocating on this channel
DeSantis a lawyer of Guantánamo wanting a law to teach "atrocities of communism" mandatory is the most US thing ever
DeSantis, a certified future looking at bricks enjoyer 😌
I like how the right will accuse everyone else of "virtue signaling" when they do it all the time as seen with Desantis and this tepid law. Especially given the fact that the American public school system already at its core is biased against the left and communist atrocities are already discussed routinely when they get to that point in the lessons. Do they think schools dont mention Stalin 😂?
Dude literally said torture was ok when he was in JAG at Guantanamo Bay and he’s going to talk about the “atrocities of communism?”
@@michaelgj23 DeSantis: "You won't believe the atrocities I saw going on in Cuba. Checkmate libs."
@@michaelgj23His thinking is probably. "Wow, I am doing some pretty nasty stuff in the name of American Democracy, I can only imagine what communism was like, since I have been told it is 1000x worse than The US.
Imagine being afraid of a guy who slept on his friends couch cause he was reading a bunch of Economic books and going "Yoooo that's messed up!"
It's almost as if some level of leisure is needed to put together a thorough criticism of just about anything in the world. It's no coincidence that most philosophers in history were living a life of relative leisure. That sort of analysis and thinking isn't really achievable if you're stuck at work most of the day...
Or maybe, just maybe. The people are afraid of it because the apocalyptic amount of death people using his ideas has caused
@@DRKTROOPER15i mean sure but why then not treat Niche in the same way?
@@mickschilder3633 pretty sure a lot of ppl do already. Although the Germans had a ton of other influences besides him. Pagan nonsense, Gnosticism and Marxism to name a few
@@DRKTROOPER15 ...World war 2 era Germans & the way of general acting of the Nazi party was not influenced by Marxism.
As someone with adhd, the goal of being able to not just do one thing forever would be amazing.
ADHD solidarity.
💯 team adhd
Yeah, and under capitalism you are free to quit your job and get another if you wanted.
As another being with ADHD, people are getting increasingly aware of the horror of solidification into one category(i.e. Jobs) like a cog in a machine, and organizing, which is a good sign.
@@eges72bro get off the internet and get a job that you can be proud of
It shouldn't come as a surprise that Marx is misunderstood; really getting his ideas requires reading books.
"really getting his ideas requires reading books" does it really when is economic ideas are so badly flawed?
I don’t think his bit about ownership of machines determining necessary vs. surplus labor time is flawed in any way (although admittedly, the Grundrisse that I learned this from is available online for free)
"but it's haaaaaard!"
@@anteeko - someone who has never tried to read theory bc they’re afraid they’ll agree with it
@@anteeko If you'd read capital you'd be flying in the lolita express right now instead of whatever this is.
The most ironic thing about politicians spouting off about the dangers of communism is that within the first few pages of the communist manifesto, Marx and Engels talk about politicians who spout off about the dangers of communism. It truly is prophetic
Marx wasn't a very good prophet though.
The workers became richer - immiseration in the developed world never led to revolution.The workers never revolted - not even in backward Russia - that was a military coup.
His two big claims were falsified by history.
His one remaining claim is that there could be no civil order prior to the development of agriculture. For at least 30 years now, we have known this has been proven to be wrong.
Marx was a mystic dipshit. He got every call 100% wrong.
"talk about politicians"
Wrong, the Communist Manifesto is just propaganda, basically rebel.
You are doing nothing to help with historical revisionism.
Give me the actual quote or phrase from the communist manifesto, because chapter 1 doesn't talk about politicians, they never are mentioned even once, so, the Communist Manifesto indirectly DOES supports those politicians.
@@saricubra2867it's the preamble.
I'd like to know more
Marxism: you're worth more than what your boss is paying you
Society: NO we're not
Socialist: this is why we can't have nice things 🤦🏼♀️
Sadly I've heard people say this :/
@@mmartinisgreat Idiotic people.
Is not a socialist. A socialist would tell that boss and that company: "I expropriate you and now it belongs to the government".
Now the average worker would be basically worthless since the government is bankrupt, there's equality at least, equally poor.
Lol, then find another boss, in another company, or negotiate a better contract, or start your own business and stop whining
@@DjMaxi005based
The moment you said “it’s like you saying your boss needs you more than you” I began to think “Am I a communist?” because I’ve been saying that to all my coworkers for months. “They can’t fire us all” is what I tend to strengthen my argument but maybe I should lean more on the “Fuck it let’s be communist” 😂😂
If your job is treating you shitty you may want to consider forming a union, because true, they can’t fire you all
Even if you don't think you're a communist you're supporting the cause by agitating for the labour struggle
Really it’s a symbiotic thing. Obviously employers need employees in order to run the business. But likewise employees often need the employer to provide the location and equipment for the work to be done since they may not be able to afford that equipment themselves, and those that do can form co ops instead. And being pro union isn’t really communist either since it’s just free negotiation between the two parties but on a larger scale.
@@gabrielespana319 Perhaps workers wouldn't require funding from capitalists if capitalists weren't hoarding all the capital in the first place.
Most wealth isn’t even hoarded cash so that makes no sense. It’s all assets.
"Marxism" and "Woke" are the two words in the US that have completely lost all meaning
Marxism hasn't lost its meaning. Americans are just stupid and don't know what Marxism is.
By design.
It's not just about making a boogieman, it's about nihilating a message. If Marxism because a meaningless word, than the actual meaning is harder to teach.
Same for "fascism" and "white supremacy".
@@Lilliathi Not at all but its not like youre here in good faith
@@Lilliathi Both fascism and white supremacy have very specific meanings -- you just don't want to read about them.
I saw a Wisecrack video about Marx not being a scary monster and I got worried that it would be a socdem/libsoc -esque repudiation of 90% of real-world Marxist revolutionary projects (somehow Cuba manages to avoid a lot of that energy), but I had enough faith in Michael to remain cautiously optimistic. I was not disappointed. This is getting saved to show to folks who flinch at words like “Marxist” and “communism” but are still willing to engage in good-faith dialogue. Excellent breakdown.
thank you so much.
As a full blown commie, I always get nervous when creators I really like discuss these topics. But wisecrack doesn’t disappoint!
"somehow Cuba manages to avoid"
Cuba is such a well known mess at this point that socialists can't hide it.
There's literal 1984 on Earth (Kim Jong Un's North Korea dystopia)
I get you. As a communist, when i see videos about communism that are not made by other communists, i always expect the "stalin killed a trillion people a year and stabed my grandma at dinner" type of shit, or trying to say that lenin or mao are not real marxists, and that the USSR was not socialist.
@@ivanabreu4383 how can you be in favor of tyranny that has produced (& still does) so much misery?
I got so blown away the first time I read “philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it”.
It's a hell of a line.
@@WisecrackEDU So is this: 10:20 - You are lying. You left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state.
@@arkology_city Also you're conflating our current state system with a marxist state. A marxist state would be "A dictatorship of the proletariat" or in other words, ran by the working masses. Effectively what this break down to is that the workers own the factories and control the financial system rather then a minority of an unelected ownership class (the bourgeois)
@@arkology_city leave this comment 100 more times and you'll be happy.
@arkology_city
"...in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
Did you not actually read the next paragraph? I presume you didn't. Or, if you did, I presume you have limited reading comprehension. Supposing you have sufficient reading comprehension to grok what is being said there, I can only assume that your arguments are in terrible faith, and are innately subversive, or are engrained in your psyche after years of indoctrinal teachings.
But all right... let's presume that you just have a primary-school level of reading comprehension. Allow me: the state would be a temporary apparatus, meant to transition, by granting power to humans, rather than corporate conglomerates and the rich people who get more rich by virtue of already being rich... generally, by birthright. Once the apparatus has served the purpose of giving the power to the people, the apparatus of the state becomes largely redundant, as the people have the power. This, in effect, means that to transition, the final act would be to disband the state, or at least, the parts of the state that concern themselves with the needs of the owner class and the working class, as the classes no longer exist, and there are just people.
There, I did the hard work of interpreting it for you, because you couldn't actually read more than just the one word, and got stuck on it.
The biggest misconception about Marx is that he was anticapitalist. He could be better describe as a post capitalist. He recognized the benefits capitalism over feudalism and that it catapulted the industrial revolution. He thought that after capitalism sufficient development it would not be necessary and the surplus of production could be socialized once the productive forces were developed enough.
IMO, I think people should understand dialectical and historical materialism first, before understanding socialism and communism
@@arandomhamster233 The problem is the capitalist class and their privileged lackeys have no reason to change until their system becomes the opposite of what it started as. Then what the working class does becomes important.
"The problem" is that many people don't realize that Marxists have a linear idea of time, in the same way that Christians and many other religions have.
@@kimobrien. The revolution is necessary to change the relations of production
Monopoly companies are afraid. Tech, oil, car
I agree with Marx that the ideal we should strive for is to give people more freedom to just be... people. How close we can get to that ideal, and how we get there, is what I'm unsure of.
It starts small, unfortunately the bare minimum is something we can't have because we're lazy or whatever, which is why we even have a minimum wage in the first place, the bosses would have you working for free (slavery) if they could.
Actually, Marx never argued for an ideal anything. In fact Marx's ideology, dialectical materialism, is intensely critical of idealistic philosophy. When you read Marx's work, it doesn't have a utopian vision of the world. At its base, it is a study of capitalist political economy, the contradictions within it, and the class antagonisms that precipitate from those contradictions. His conclusion is that, similar to previous class societies like feudal Europe, the stratification and exploitation of a disenfranchised class leads to the eventual destruction of that mode of production leading to a new form. For Marx, that next form would logically lead from the workers as a developing class as the capitalists took over from an aristocracy unwilling to truly recognize them.
It'll have to be put to a vote. I've never understood the West's insistence that the question is "Communism" or "Democracy" when Marx insisted that the workers themselves would determine socio-economic systems WITHOUT dictators.
At least you agree with the ideal and don't idolize and defend the indefensible. That's the first step. Admitting we have a problem.
@@DawryMike eh, certain things were very much idealized by Marx in his writings, in order for him to have such conclussions. Such as nationalization and the state owning banks being better than the alternative. Here's my critic on that: He talked as if corruption would cease to exist, or as if people suddenly stopped being human beings, due to there being a revolution of the proletariat or because they have certain ideas he advocated for...
I can't help but think abolition of private property is utterly wrong. Any system of economic distribution can only work on the basis of private property.
Also, any proposal that doesn't take into account the very fundamental "Human Nature" is meant to fall or to cause degradation.
For example, the value of things is subjective, for the most part it can't be objective. People are vastly different not only culturally, but also on an individual level. The value different types of people place on stuff varies significantly, therefore the subjective value is more important. Thus, the price of things has to be determined at a subjective level. In this sense, people can at a certain point demand for certain Standards to be placed upon goods. These Standards can only be improved in countries where people achieve a greater capacity of acquisition of private property and goods. Because this capacity is a kind of "redistributed power". While not perfect, it's miles better than what people without this capacity have in poorer countries. But you can't have this if you follow Marxist ideas only. Because you wouldn't be taking into account that you'll be unavoidably giving the power to take decisions on people who don't care for any Standards that particular persons have, as long as "things generally work fine". This means that you can't have Standards, or that corruption will end up degrading them, in a system where private property and money isn't in the hands of people.
Since you can't have absolutely everyone being their own bosses or owning everything at the same time, whoever gets to do so will be the bosses, the leaders, the "bourgeoisie", the government.
By mere laws of physics and of nature it just isn't possible. You can't even force everyone to think the same way or be almost literal members of a same party. What Marx thought of is only possible (for a hypothetical more just and fair world), when written on a paper, making it sound logic and fair, without having strong grounds to base them on. This is why these ideas tend to degrade to authoritarism, because from the beginning, you can see there will be certain impositions that are almost impossible to apply to plenty of humanity. You can even become a tyrant yourself, maybe even the worst in all of history, while telling tales and beautiful stories to people, even if you based them on your own feelings of kindness and good.
Of course, I'm not advocating for a completely Capitalism society. It's also only an ideal, it can't exist in a similar manner that a fully Communist or a fully Socialist system can't. The world is so complex and has so many nuances that only mixed systems have existed, can exist and will exist in practice in the future.
Marxism is probably the most amorphous term in our political landscape. It can be used as a means to vilify anything and everything.
So does capitalism and here we are
@@germalganis I'm yet to hear of "cultural capitalism".
@@joshuacampbell1625 bro read the comments on this video lmao wtf?
@@germalganis Nah, people have pretty valid criticisms of capitalism.
@@cudelsx why not? It's entertainment
I'm happy I managed to scroll down the comments for a while without finding people having a complete meltdown over an honest portrayal of Marx's ideas. Great job, as usually!
I mean how does Michael get away with saying Marx didn't call for violence when he says taking by force is the only way? Or how does Michael say Marx doesn't describe the utopia but then a minute later explains what will be abolished. Idk he just says things and then contradicts it but the optimistic energy just carries through the big scary changes we should criticize
@@partydean17 Let me guess, when you pay taxes, do you consider that to be "violence" against you because it's "by force"?
@@Independent97 kinda since the government is so corrupt and large. But I see good uses of the taxes as well that I appreciate. I'm fine with pooling our money together for police, rules being upheld and the poorly managed but still present infrastructure.
@@partydean17 Idk what to say if you think that very simple definition of communism is enough of a description to structure a society around. It's way too broad, and every country did it with very different means and goals that made more sense to their material situation (even contradicting some of those broad ideas in the short/medium run).
Another fun fact: a lot of the communist revolutions actually had very little bloodshed until after the national bourgeoisie got international support to fight back after people had already seized power. They had the option to peacefully become workers themselves (many did!), so violence isn't inherent to the process.
@@eduardoserpa1682 aight well we love watching South Americans try it every so often I'll have my popcorn ready to watch the utopia
I was watching this while thinking about the Reddit Blackout death cycle. It really puts into perspective how the value isn't the site itself, but created by passionate volunteers who make a community and site worth visiting. Trying to extract money from the people who create capital in a misguided effort to make it more profitable is the literal death knell of every social platform.
And instead of coming together and making real change they went right back to the website.
@@darbodrake89hooosh! The point is that Reddit is killing itself, not that the blackout would kill / fix it.
@@Large_Gigungus But it isn't, the point still stands that the people that make content for reddit, are going to continue going there.
If there was not some other value to the site itself then they would migrate elsewhere.
@@Large_Gigungus they didn’t make a point by blacking out subreddits. The way you make a point is by leaving the website forever. You guys did nothing and it’s lazy internet activism that will do nothing
You do something by not buying into their products.
@@johndotcue The issue wasn't that a massive amount of people were being lazy, it's that the subreddit admins literally couldn't keep the blackout going due to site admins threatening to replace them with people who would open the subs back up. There were plenty of people who left entirely, but there aren't enough to cause a sizeable dent, and since the subreddits were forced to re-open, it's hard to do anything about it.
LOL! While watching this video, at little over the halfway point, I was shown an advertisement for a book by the economist Thomas Sowell - one of the most strident opponents of Marxism, and someone who demonizes nearly all aspects of modern culture as stemming from Marxism. You got to love the RUclips algorithm.
I got a crypto ad at the begginning, also funny.
Sowell was a former Marxist as well.
Sowell is so much better than Marx.
Sowell is based
Sowell is an infinitely better read than Marx.
Always frustrated at getting called a sheep by people who have completely bought in to the capitalist grift
…and mindlessly follow orders of their superiors 👍
So actually you're frustrated by the sheep.
@@beltonite2243 Casual reminder that sheep are herded by threatening to kill them. To call people who fall for propaganda "sheep" is disrespectful to actual sheep.
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state.
@@arkology_city Because you won't read the context, or you can't comprehend it. That just makes you ignorant, probably willfully so.
"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."
In that context, "owned by the state" and the rest literally means that the proletariat organized as the ruling class will control those things. The proletariat, which must "win the battle of democracy" and do things to move away from the capitalist (i.e. top-down) AND FEUDAL systems (because fuedalism was a common thing in his time). If you can't comprehend the difference between a traditional state and what is being described there, then you're not even trying to understand, but are instead trying to find anything you can to support your narrative, especially by decontextualizing it. This is not the only place Marx explained that the movement was not a statist one, but required that the whole of the working class (not just a tiny "vanguard" part of it) take over the administration of the state as the ruling class.
Read "Conspectus on Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy" if you don't accept that notion. Marx was very clear that he was advocating for common worker control as in a workers' cooperative factory, not state control as you confidently proclaim. Or don't read anything but what you want to see, and continue spouting BS. Up to you.
I read Kapital a few years ago after reading The Wealth of Nations. Huge parts of it felt like the same book. I realized how propagandized I'd been against his work afterward. It didn't line up with what I'd been taught at all.
I wouldn't call myself a Marxist, but it definitely influenced the way I look at the world, government, institutions, etc
I'm glad that Labor Theory was debunked later, because the abusurdity of "explotation" at work makes me think that the whole world is a gulag when isn't the case.
@@saricubra2867 a) it wasnt
B) definitionally you can absolutely not make an argument that extracting profit from the labour of workers is not exploitation.
exploitation
[ ek-sploi-tey-shuhn ]
noun
use or utilization, especially for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.
selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.
@@saricubra2867 It wasn't debunked so much as it was ridiculed and economists in college basically go out of their way to pretend it doesnt exist under the guise of being 'apolitical'. The Chicago School of economics for example, literally tells you to ignore reality if your models dont match up.
Adam Smith himself is largely misrepresented since he was mostly just trying to describe the system he saw, not proscribe how things should work. People read, "Invisible Hand" and ascribe moral value to it. He hated landlords and believed that markets could not properly provide many things, one example being education which he argued states should provide. Tldr; Adam Smith was not a laizze faire capitalist, both have had their writings distorted to serve power.
@@kylewilliams8114 They didn't have their writings distorted to serve power because they were flawed in the first place If every socialist country in the world is a mess is because the theory is wrong.
95% of those who criticize Marx have read about 0-5% of what he wrote. I have yet to come across a good faith, thorough, and accurate repudiation of Marx, likely because when you actually read and absorb what he says, you realize, “Oh, wait, he’s right about that, and that, and that, and that…”
I guess he's just been misunderstood all those times his ideas have been used to justify oppression, starvation, state sponsored murder & all around misery.
Including 95% of leftist
I read Marx, and he is wrong about almost everything, every prediction he made, both about the future, aswell looking retrospectivly at the past don't follow Marxist theory.
Nobody ever does the reading.
Listening to right-wingers talk about Marxism is like watching Bart Simpson try to fake his way through a book report.
😂😂😂
Marx was a Freemason, enough said. 🙄
Somewhere Marx defines his method, dialetics, as inherently critical and revolutionary. I love to think of a theory that dictates its own limits and transcendence, a continuous movement that captures the real world in its reflection and is never complete but always completing.
ps. would love a video on dialetics, recommend immensely the Brazilian author Alvaro Vieira Pinto!
It's not an idea, it's a reasonable possibility that has not arrived in a reasonable form yet.
If you want to go further into dialectics I recommend you to read Hegel where he got the idea from.
@@vassilyvodka2638he didn't "got the idea from Hegel" he inverted Hegel. You're welcome
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
― George Orwell
Not that this quote is wrong, since europe/US does it like for centuries, but Orwell was anticommunist, 1984 and Animal Farm was even printed as part of anticommunist propaganda in some countries
Orwell had some bangers
Say this to the White Folks
Ironic. He said that, while writing the most shitty allegory on Stalin's USSR, and being a British secret Service bootlicker.
@@RealFemale69 yeah, I like some of his writings
Old man Karl has been dead for 142 years and he's still seen as a mortal enemy of the Capitalist class. I think he would be pleased.
Marx critique of Capitalism is deep and inescapable and he will be relevant for as long as this system exist.
"I think he would be pleased."
He would see the modern world as a marvel.
Piles of corpses ignored to say it wasnt tried to give them another go at adding to the corpse pile.
And had you given it even a thought why people will try again and again to topple Capitalism?
The question is rhetorical since the answer is very simple: is because this system is simply intolerable and people will always aspire to something better. Thinking that Capitalism is the final economic and social system for humanity is absurd. That's why people will fight to change it... until they'll do.
As for Marx thinking this world is a marvel? Sure he would find admirable the advances in Science and Technology, he never denied the wonders of industrialism. But he certainly would not be surprised that such marvels were used to build inequality greater than under the pharaohs, that instead of liberating man from work it brought instead greater exploitation and Alienation and put entire continents under the boot.
That the marvels of Science where use to merely make money and exploit workers instead of liberating Mankind is an incredible tragedy that'll keep on happening until Capitalism is finally defeated.
He’s the enemy of free people everywhere.
Yeah because whipping up murderous mobs for centuries after you're dead is such an achievement. I'd love to be remembered 140 from now for spawning hateful mobs who linch people steal and put millions to death and starvation. While also trampling on the rights of hundreds of millions, to billions, creating despotic regimes often worse then whatever semi capitalist ones they overthrew. While also witnessing the useful idiots flock to my teachings time after time after time again. Often for lefty pseudo-intellectual types who don't actually know any of the real struggle of actual working class people to larpe as the "proletariat"
Marx really helped me in fundamentally shifting my understanding of labor and recreation. Humans actually enjoy doing things, even under capitalism we do volunteer work, domestic work, and hobbies. In a world where all activities are done voluntarily and not under the threat of losing food and shelter the divides between work and play become more blurry. Labor often feels so draining because we are not doing it fully consensually, and this has been normalized for so much of our recent history.
But what if you are a guy like me? I don’t really want to work what incentive is there for someone like me to work in your system?
@@stuckinthemud4352 what do you mean?
@@kdandsheela seems like you were implying that people will work for the good of the community rather than personal gain and I was just curious what incentive you think there is for me to work in a Marxist system. What if I don’t want to help my fellow man and I just want to get paid
@stuckinthemud4352
Then your community can come together to shame you into pulling your weight. We can also just give you the worst available jobs until you shape up!
Try again, loser.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@stuckinthemud4352 that's not really what I was going for, I can't speak for what a marxist system would look like, I haven't read enough of him to really say. My main belief is that forcing people to work is cringe. If I were to make an ideal world, I'm a lot more concerned with the fact that almost everyone is being forced to work than some people might not want to work. And like, even if I saw people not wanting to work as a problem I wouldn't suggest the solution be to force them to work under threat of losing food and shelter, that's lowkey psychotic
Marx wouldn't want for the Wisecrack Team to own the Channel, he would want the team to own RUclips.
we'll take it.
Shouldn't that be everyone to own RUclips? It would be a shame to take it from Google, give it to Michael and turn him into a soulless, bourgeois, internet mogul. This would be regrettably ironic given the content of this great video.
@@paulmfennelly1047 I'm not sure workers owning of the means production should mean ALL workers own ALL the means of production.
@Wisecrack can you please do a video "on the jewish question" by karl marx and then ask again who is afraid of marx?? Like kinda big deal to just gloss over
@@edumazieri In practice it meant the government own the means of production and you don't get to vote. Which is less than ideal.
I feel like most of the people today who use "Marxism" as a scare word have never bothered to even open one of Marx's books
Do they need to read the book , when they can look at the creepy things that Marxists do ... Isn't that right comrade
And that word summarises why the system is bad ,it basically dehumanises the worker and basically turns them into exchangeable objects ,
You see this in politics, one of the first things left wing parties do is have new censorship laws to control who can speak.
It also doesn't take into account humans forming cliques or bulling
I've read plenty of his writings. The man was an absolutist, pseudo-scientist and a racist. He was not some infallible prophet.
@thursoberwick1948 Exactly what someone who has never read anything would say...
Coincidence?
I think the lady doth protest too much!
@@stephendaley266 If you wish to pursue ad hominems, let me ask you another question. Are you treating Marx as infallible? As a Marxist, you do not believe in the supernatural, and more in the history of the mass than the individual. Therefore he cannot be the equivalent of a prophet in a religion and he will be the product of his times and the processes around him. (The latter notion is very much central to Marx's own ideas by the way.) So is Marx 100% correct and infallible? Or is he not 100% correct and infallible? If the latter, which parts do you think are incorrect and why? Why would you criticise anyone for pointing out his faults if you do not believe in him having some kind of divine infallibility?
@thursoberwick1948 Are you at all familiar with Isaac Newton and Newtonian physics?
Newtonian physics explains a lot about the physical world around us, but has serious limitations because of how long ago it was developed.
It has been superceded by particle physics and quantum physics.
Even so, Newtonian physics is still taught in school because it explains so much about basic physics.
The same is true for Marxian economics. It explains the economics of 19th century industrial Capitalism very well.
It doesn't explain global supply chains and financialization because those concepts hadn't been invented when Marx was writing Das Capital.
Marxism is still incredibly useful in understanding basic economics and the underlying power imbalance implied in most financial transactions. You would understand this if you weren't so stupid.
Good luck, kid!
Marx recognized that capitalist labor was making people less free. His goal was greater equality, not less. Keep in mind he's writing in the middle of England's Industrial Revolution, just after England abolished slavery. As such, the awareness of exploited labor was pretty poignant (hence: the Revolutions of 1848) . Everyone agreed wage labor looked pretty similar to slavery (their own comparison, not mine) but they thought the creation of labor-saving machines and new technology would make people MORE equal, spoiler...it did the opposite.
The disciples of Ludd (Luddites) werent afraid of technology. They smashed the machines because they correctly recognized that their implementation would mean their impoverishment, enslavement, and the destruction of their way of life. They smashed them because they were expensive and meant a lot to the factory bosses. Looms were welcomed, so long as their introduction benefited them and did not result in them being thrown away like trash.
But the only thing they heralded were greater profits. Ultimately, the disciples of Ned Ludd were thrown away like trash, and they are mocked in common society to this day. Synonymous with being afraid of advancing technology. When in truth the only thing they feared was their impending death if they were unable to adapt to the looms.
@@thomashenry4798 to be fair, stoping technological progress is impossible. They should have focused their attention on the factors that would made the adoption of the new technologies harmful, not the technologies themselves.
@@thomashenry4798 So you're saying they weren't afraid of technological advancement, they were just too stupid to understand their own concerns in order to formulate an actual reasonable course of action.
@KLJFcallme If the problem at hand is "bad people will hurt me if these machines exist", destroying the machines doesn't solve the problem at all. Destroying those bad people might.
@@thomashenry4798 As I understand it, the Luddites were effective in their activism and making them synonymous with lost causes is a victory of anti-populist propaganda. It's popular to frame them as a movement to stop technological progress, but they weren't fighting an ultimate war against technology or even capitalism. In reality they fought a series of battles defending themselves against particular institutions. They were selective in whose machinery they destroyed. At the time factories were not devoted entirely by a single firm, they had different areas and machines owned by different people. They went after the worst employers' machines to frighten the others into treating their workers better. This is just what I hear from "This Machine Kills" a podcast that revisits Ludd on multiple episodes. Most recently the Luddites were used for a point of reference for how "The New Left" has been similarly mischaracterized as doomed and ineffectual idealists. We remember hippies trying to levitate the Pentagon with good vibes. Nobody brings up the full week that the U.S. had to cease their bombing of Vietnam because Leftists had blown up the Pentagon's computers. To summarize : every battle counts, the ruling class teaches us that resistance is futile because they know it isn't.
I was working as a machine operator making cooling systems for like airplanes, trucks, etc and just one piece of the 75-100 I made in a workday ranged anywhere from $500 - $2k dollars in value. I made $17/hr. For a 12 hour workday even before taxes I couldn't afford to buy just one of those pieces.
Can't even afford a 1/1 bedroom anywhere near where I work.
This is a good system and I see no flaws with it. 🥴
I doubt you bring that in value. Try blaming yourself for your lack of value and not everyone else. People making hamburgers make more than you.
@@dandeaton6511 60 million working Americans make between $7.25 and $20/hr. Most Americans live in urban centers. Average rent in urban centers for a 1 bedroom Apt is $1500/mo. This isn't about individual value - clearly my labor generates value since my company makes billions in revenue and profit every year. This is about wage stagnation and rising costs of living.
Bootstraps rhetoric is nonsense, you're justifying wage slavery and that's never ended well for any society.
@@rileyxsko Your logic is what nonsense, you blame society for your problems. This are difficult right now, thank the Democrats for that. But should improve your yourself to become a valuable employee, then you will make more, or start you own business. But simply blaming society for your lack of ability or enthusiasm is a bunch of BS. There are many people doing well and its not do to any type of privilege. They just didn’t listen to jackasses like this guy.
@@dandeaton6511 Nah. Regurgitating Heritage Foundation talking points disseminated by the wealthy that literally get wealth by exploiting and under-paying workers doesn't actually address the very real problem of economic equality. It's easier to lay the blame on the workers with no power instead of recognizing that this system is reliant upon the expropriation of wealth to the top from the bottom. That Boomer cliche "pUlL yOurSelF uP bY yOuR bOoTstRaPs" nonsense might have worked on you but I ain't buying it. All labor demands a living -- nay, thriving wage.
But yeah bro keep talking trash on the people that keep you fed, that people that manufacture the products and technology that literally keep you alive, keep infantilizing the tens of millions of workers that are fed up with not being able to take care of themselves despite working overtime and not having the time to spend with their families. And when they stand you up facing the wall you let me know if it was worth it d---riding the 1% so you could feel superior to blue collar workers tryna make ends meet.
Stay on that psycho apathetic sh-- and see where that takes you old man.
@@dandeaton6511 Actually it a rigged system and even the bourgeois economist like Milton Friedman will admit it if you listen closely that banks create capital by lending it back and forth to each other such that it gets counted on the books of more than one bank and that they only keep a faction on deposit despite the total of the currency in circulation.
To understand marx you need first to understand capitalism. So far no one(in the USA) seems to do any of that.
Capitalism switches between "when people work and trade" and "this ideal society which never existed and thus can't be blamed" depending on whatever is convenient.
Marx was a nobody. His failed ideology is based on zoroastrianism, abrahamic religions, and jacobin mystical freemasonry. In order words it's conservatism disguised as equality.
Adam Smith is a requirement to understand Marx. Even he had a few biases towards the industrialized system. Somewhere in page 368 he mentioned how he was against it, because doing one or two task in your job makes you more stupid.
Including you
I have to commend you Wisecrack, Its a noble thing to use your platform to inform people about this subject. The youtube algorithm is merciless and a big channel like yours clearing propaganda is worthy of praise. Keep it up comrades
Marxism is a red fascist failure that murders millions of its own people in order to put control of all of society into the hands of THE CONGRESS. A well-known noble and omnipotent organization! /s
Workers of the World, Unite!!!
word
In the mid 2010’s The School of Life introduced a lot of people to Marxism. Unintentionally inspiring a lot of people to actually read Marxist theory like Das Kapital, putting a good number of people on a path to become class conscious today especially after events that came after 2016. Now today in 2023 people have this (far superior) Wisecrack video to introduce them to Marxism. Here’s hope this will lead many young people to be inspired to actually read Marx’s work.
I like both videos, but I find the “far superior” descriptor to be very strange. School of Life videos are very well researched and put together.
@@drakedargon9681I disagree, I think Big Joel's video on School of Life made me reconsider my view on the channel
@@ManOnCouch yeah that was a great video, but little joel makes better content
@@JaseekaRawr That's fair but personally I think medium Joel is better than the other two
I was one of those n*ggas
Could Marx help us understand the world we are living in? Yes.
It can help us understand how his philosophy has failed time and again with disastrous results.
@@barbiquearea oh for that we gotta learn about sweet CIA
@@barbiquearea no. Lol.
Yes, he can help make you understand the world, if you are a massive idiot who can't grasp complex subjects. It is because of idiots like you that so many people still suffer in this world.
@@barbiqueareaalmost like he has no qualification on this dead about economy when all he did was freeload of his parents and never actually worked a day in his life. Truly a man that understand’s a workers’ struggles.
Marx was a scientist, economics, and philosopher. I feel that he's one of the most misunderstood people in history.
I'm trying to remember the last country that definitively benefited from his ideas, but I got nothing.
Did he actually paid for his studies or he just was a fraud homeless that got popular because of rich friends?
@@Ray-mj5mj Have you ever met an economist? Marxes theory of value is one of the most foundational things to modern economics, the booms and busts of your country are due to his work.
@@Ray-mj5mj both China and Russia benefitted *massively* from Marx’s ideas ? The first 20 years within implementing communism brought them onto the world stage.
@@Ray-mj5mj His ideas span larger than just an opaque definition given by some novice philosopher druggie riddled on benzos such as Jordan Peterson.
Wisecrack getting more and more based with every upload
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state. Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss, as was the case with the Bolsheviks and every other Marxist "revolution". By design. It is why the power-hungry are always Marxists. They lure you in with false promises of prosperity, when really it is an ideology of fascist power.
biased*
@@chazlewis8114 did you watch the video dumb fuck or is this your knee-jerk reaction to anything that portrays socialism in a neutral or positive light?
@@chazlewis8114no u
I love the simple and straightforward way this was explained! It completely shuts down all those silly arguments about how "cultural marxism" is coming for the children lmfao.
My university classes in which Marx was taught were some of the best I've had. When it 'clicks' for people, they see the world completely different, and it's amazing to watch happen.
Oh look, another “I watched a video about Marx and Marxism. It debunks everything about Cultural Marxism going after for the children. My university class that taught Marx most certainly didn’t force a bias about Marxism.”
This video and your university class does not debunk anything. It simply shows the brainwashing and gaslighting Marxists push on the fragile minds of people in universities.
I'm happy with the direction this channel is taking.
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state.
Left?
@@arkology_city I think you’re entirely missing the point. He explained that Marx was describing a way to look at the world, and some potential solutions for the world during his time. We can recognize the criticisms of the capitalist employee-employer power dynamic and analyze our current material conditions using hindsight as well, and try to come up with ways to make the world a better place. People act like capitalism is the end of history, that it’s just going to be capitalist forever. They said that about feudalism too. I’m optimistic that building a better world is possible, and there’s all kinds of new and interesting ideas for how that might be done.
@@arkology_city @arkology_city
"...in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
Did you not actually read the next paragraph? I presume you didn't. Or, if you did, I presume you have limited reading comprehension. Supposing you have sufficient reading comprehension to grok what is being said there, I can only assume that your arguments are in terrible faith, and are innately subversive, or are engrained in your psyche after years of indoctrinal teachings.
But all right... let's presume that you just have a primary-school level of reading comprehension. Allow me: the state would be a temporary apparatus, meant to transition, by granting power to humans, rather than corporate conglomerates and the rich people who get more rich by virtue of already being rich... generally, by birthright. Once the apparatus has served the purpose of giving the power to the people, the apparatus of the state becomes largely redundant, as the people have the power. This, in effect, means that to transition, the final act would be to disband the state, or at least, the parts of the state that concern themselves with the needs of the owner class and the working class, as the classes no longer exist, and there are just people.
There, I did the hard work of interpreting it for you, because you couldn't actually read more than just the one word, and got stuck on it.
@@arkology_city Is my copy-paste response getting annoying yet? I clearly put more thought into it than yours, at least.
Marx is the monster we need, comrades.
No, I need put that part of me away. It's been a very long couple of years though.
a dude who planned to write 4 books and only came around to write 1?
@@azurblau4144Bad writing schedule was his downfall
If abolishing showers gets us closer to better living conditions then showers be damned.
@@Dis_Dis apparently the German police (of the day) who were assigned to surveil him saw him drinking a lotta red wine with Engels and writing the manifesto in a fit of drunken confidence. Much like myself at university. Relatable guy. He really hits the nail on the head though, yeah?
Das Capital is the one with the meaty economic theory behind it.
"Bougie bitches gonna bouge."-Marx
To clarify, this is from his sophomore album, known most commonly as Das No Cap. But a true fan like me knows that it was originally titled The Grundrisse, a Critique of Dat Ass. It was his last good album. After DNC, he started getting really commercial. Dude sold out hard.
That's when he made Marxy Marx and the Commie Bunch, right?
In Vietnam, we learn about both Karl Marx and Adam Smith's economic philosophies to gain a better understanding from different perspectives. While it's important to acknowledge the negative consequences of communism, it often prevents people from recognizing the flaws in capitalism.
They are both flawed because they view people primarily as economic units and are materialist.
Communism did more damage, killed more people in Vietnam then the war did. the flaws of capitalism aren't that bad
@@dimitriwillems8735 That's an obvious lie.
Capitalism murdered 2 million Vietnamese in the war of American aggression.
Capitalism murdered a similar number of people in Korea.
Capitalism overthrew dozens of democratically elected governments around the world and enabled right-wing dictators to murder millions.
Read an actual history book before you spout nonsense like this.
Later, loser!
@@dimitriwillems8735 Which war though? Vietnam went through at least three. Never forget that. A war against the French and a war against the Chinese that was vicious as well. It was still recovering from WW2 in the sixties.
I once saw a doc where they interviewed old VietCong and funnily enough, all of them gave nationalistic justifications for fighting America.
I apologize for our blatant disrespect of and utter disregard for human life. No one wins in war. - an American veteran
I'm really digging all the comments already calling the video wrong when it hasn't even been uploaded long enough to be watched.
Because WhatifaltHist's video on Communism as a whole is a far more clear and concise dissection of the Communist, Socialist, and Marxist religions.
@@GeorgeCowsert All three of these are economic models, not religions.
@@GeorgeCowsert WhatIfAlthist is unironically a nazi fanboy
@@GeorgeCowsert "religions" lol.
Actually you can comment on a few things
The premise that capitalism is a zero sum game is wrong.
Nobody thinks that capitalism is a zero sum game. It is an inherently exploitative system which perpetuates class conflict and is predicated upon a requisite amount of suffering in order to function properly.
Sounds like every RUclips channel should reform as a worker's co-operative loudly and in a way that inspires future creators and entrepreneurs to follow suit.
Well, it's pretty important to see that Communist states are different from what Marx envisioned in the same way that an officially Christian nation is different from what Christ preached.
Actual results may vary. Also, the nation's that embraced Marxism (Russia, China) weren't the ones he predicted would (America, Britain).
Number one mistake: "Communist STATE". Shows you are uneducated on the topic of both marxism AND soviet history.
@@Lonovavirthey also only got as far as state capitalism and welfare state down the barrel of a gun. China is literally regressing from that to social democracy now after Deng.
They are socialist states, not communist.
The burgeoise are the politicians and the totalitarian state, the proletariat is the rest of the population. Now THAT is exploitation. I was watching North Korean youtubers explaining how life is in North Korea and how they left their country, scary AF. Woman aren't even allowed for having unique hair style, pretty bizarre stuff...
It's not, Cuba, Korea, China (debatable), the USSR, Lao, Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Albania and others are/were all valid and real socialist experiencies following the Marxism-Leninism ideas
Thanks, Burns. Thanks, Tom. Thanks, Editor; you're the real star of the channel.
Marx and Lenin. Flax and Linen. There's a joke here somewhere but I'm not quite clever enough...
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.
“Editors note: wait a second…”
You just radicalized your editor buddy, hope you’re prepared to pay a living wage!
I just finished reading “Why Marx was Right” by Terry Eagleton and it’s actually an amazing book for anyone who wants a fun quick read that’s well researched and does well at debunking some of the most common falsehoods, myths and misconceptions about Marxism and communism.
I recently read it as well and I thought it was pretty informative for even a guy on the left such as myself.
Do you think it's fair workers should be on the line for executive decision-making, risk, and debt if Marxists got their way?
Do you think the proletariat dictatorship would 'dissolve itself' after violently snatching power?
Eagleton was a fanboy. Let's discuss the pseudo-scientific aspects of his doctrine, KM's well documented racism and how inflexible absolutist thought inevitably leads to tyranny.
@@thursoberwick1948 Eagalton speaks at length in this book about how Marx wasn’t an absolutist
I bought it and read it and found it disappointing-I thought it took lots of bad, strawman arguments and addressed _them_ (correctly, but still), which is sort of low-hanging fruit. I wouldn’t say the book was about “Why Marx Was Right” but more “A Lot of Critiques You Hear About Marx Are Wrong.”
The more I learn about Marx, the more I want a world that might resemble his vague ideas about the world.
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state.
I suggest reading some Lenin.
State and Revolution is a good read.
@@arkology_city wut, where
@@arkology_citylie better. Marxism is about collective ownership of the means of production, and a state made up of the working class for the sake of the working class. The Marxist state is fundamentally different than the capitalist state, and trying to simplify it to "state-owned" only reveals you as a fool.
@@arkology_cityI mean all you have to do is point to his written words. Where can we find evidence that disproves his bold lie?
Love these in-depth raw philosophy, keep them coming!!!
One thing I recall hearing is that, a terrifying 'boogeyman' of capitalism that Marx feared was those with money, trying to use money to assign value to something, thus completely undermining the very value of 'work' and a prime example of that is something we are seeing them trying to do now! NFT's.
Few people understand money including how banks are able to create more on their books than actually is in circulation. The bank began as a safe place to store a heavy metal called gold. Today the banks play a major role along with insurance companies because so much money goes to them and investment comes from them.
“The hellish vapours rise and fill the brain
Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed
See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me
For me he beats the time and gives the signs.
Ever more boldly, I play the dance of death.” -Marx
Guy also knew how to write poetry.
Dude would have loved metal...
When an engels meet the devil, the red sky is not too far
🌟
@@OmbreDunDouble Ok, thats funny.
@@justinjacobs1501it very much reads like a Manowar or Gloryhammer lyric, something from the goofier end
But could he have written 9-5?
Well done, I am afraid it will not reach those who need to see it though. We are legit in another red scare.
the first one never ended
it's not a red scare, it's called accountability. you don't refer to judging colonialism as "the royal scare". people have died. just because a man said "west bad" doesn't mean he should be absolved of any guilt
@Jakerina I have a feeling you didn't read any Marx . You could at minimum watch the video.
@@Crawlingdreams418
YUO DONT LIKE CAPITALISM YET YOU EXIST
IPHONE VENEZUELA BOTTOM TEXXT 100 BILLION DEAD
"I never said that" - Karl Marx
Far funnier than it has any right to be.
The Value of your work which you'd agreed upon... isn't the same as value of the final product and that's totally okay. Especially when multiple people work on product, then someone has to distribute it/ship it / company has to make a profit in order to further produce and pay the workers. Simple math. I recently spoke to friend of mine, which is on a radical left spectrum and he thinks he knows the best what people need. :-D Oh really? So he knows better than actual demand? (people) This is the main problem in these ideologies. Free market simply transforms according to people's needs and desires, that's why it works. I'm not agaist some regulations, but c'mon. Commies always "knew better" what people want. 🤦♂ Also, there will always be some sort of wealth inequality, that's normal and natural. It's important, however, to provide good opportunities for everyone. (cheap/free education, healthcare...etc)
Remember, when in the Disney cartoon series "Recess" basecall cards became a currency and T.J. became a Tycoon by letting others do his work, but gave them less cards than he got in return? Yeah, if you can understand that episode, you understand the Capital.
That episode of recess is definitely informed my personal beliefs. That and the Strike episode of SpongeBob.
I do appreciate the breakdown on this because understanding marx really has been on my to-do list for awhile.
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state. Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss, as was the case with the Bolsheviks and every other Marxist "revolution". By design. It is why the power-hungry are always Marxists. They lure you in with false promises of prosperity, when really it is an ideology of fascist power.
Welcome to the FBI watchlist comrades
LOL
the list keeps on growing!
Worth pointing out that so many works remained incomplete in Marx’s life because of how active he was as a journalist and political organiser. Opponents will say he never worked a day in his life, but work was a huge part of why his literature was largely published and completed posthumously
Marx's opponents could not conceptualize work if it's not for profit. Creating the international, political activity, thinking and writing to them is not work.
The government also shut down some of his jobs and threatened people who thought about hiring him. The "Marx was lazy" crowd are the only ones being lazy.
Who's afraid of Marx? Everyone who's uninterested in sharing, fairness or responsibility.
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state.
@@arkology_cityyes, you are now Bordiga. Ultra left.
Marx/Eingels with the Communist Manifesto doesn't imply sharing, just plain theft by force for carity.
I like the Jesus way more. By voluntary actions, not weird ideology, ironic that Jesus was killed by the Roman Empire. Just like the libertarian parody of Game of Thrones.
“Editors note: wait a minute…” absolutely killed me
Man if these politicians are having this much fun with Marx and Engels I can't wait to see what happens when they get to Lenin lol
Nah, Kim Jong Un is having fun with George Orwell's 1984 making North Korea accurate to the book.
@@saricubra2867 and u are also wrong, again like every stereotypes abt north korea
@@manhquannguyen9663 Those stereotypes are true, backed up with people that left the country and footage of how life is there.
If you want to deny facts for the socialist/communist religion, that's on you.
It is so challenging to learn anything about Marxism. Not what others say about Marxism. -- I highly suggest people read Marx, Engels, and at least Lenin directly.
I have, and I'm still not buying it. The chief problems for most people are quite simple: a) the sheer volume of material, and b) the style of it. Marx was a German and German speakers can produce quite turgid prose even in translation. It's not something one would ever read for enjoyment, and it's certainly not infallible.
@@thursoberwick1948 a) No real way around that. Get into any critical field of work and you will find an overwhelming amount of content to digest. b) Marx, sure. but Lenin? Lenin's writing is downright hilarious at times, and almost continually engaging
The bourgeois, that’s who. Who else would be scared of him?
"Who's afraid of Marx?"
Engels' wallet.
radicalize the youth wisecrack please someones gotta do it
LOL What an absolute load of tripe. And the researcher for this video wrote a book? The argument is that Marx never defined communism… and then several times throughout the video Marx’s definition of communism in his works is mentioned. Did anyone proofread this junk script? He clearly defined communism, and mentioned the in between stages to reach it. He was also wrong on pretty much everything. His critiques of capitalism is bunk, which is why when you go to business school for example you don’t study Marx at all. In his analysis of the worker being soaked he ignores the fact that the worker takes *zero* risk and invests no equity in the enterprise. In exchange for mitigating risk, they negotiate a wage. The crackpot also ignores the fact that owners can do their own work and add value. Do they milk themselves? No, they *added value*. The video could have had a saving grace in that critical theory could’ve been examined (it’s bullcrap, but it’s a path to explore), or it could’ve differentiated Marxism from other ideologies conflated with Marxism such as Maoism which was very pro-murder. And finally, the notion that “dumb” and “dangerous” are mutually exclusive… holy crap. Really? Dumb ideas can be VERY dangerous. That’s the danger of Marxism, it’s dumb and doesn’t make sense and pursuing it is demonstrably dangerous. Pursuit of Marxism has killed hundreds of millions of people in barely two centuries.
Try read “the Jewish question” by Marx. Everything will start to unravel.
If you want to lean more, I loved the book "Why Marx was right", by Terry Eagleton.
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state. Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss, as was the case with the Bolsheviks and every other Marxist "revolution". By design. It is why the power-hungry are always Marxists. They lure you in with false promises of prosperity, when really it is an ideology of fascist power.
leave this comment 10 more times and maybe a fairy will get its wings
Most people I seen critiquing Marx including myself, don’t know what he actually proposes
I do know and read him, he did a lot of damage with the implications of Labor Theory.
The roots of facism, socialism, communism all come from that theory.
Not only marx, but class struggle from the Communist Manifesto is a pattern shared in facist and nazi ideologies.
in my eyes, marx’s biggest flaw is pointing out and speaking against exploitation. so many people have been forced into thinking they’re meant to be exploited, and once they lie cheat and steal their way up the ladder they get to exploit others. the concept of imagining a different society is so foreign to so many people
Except he didn't offer other solutions, he merely pointed it out. So when the revolutions came for socialism, they just ended up exploiting people again anyway except now everything was collectivized. I don't think the poor really care about the distinction between statist or capitalist control of resources, they're exploited in both instances.
Which is why people should've remained obedient robots who worked 12 hours a day for 8 dollars a month and died in invasions of sovereign countries.
Not just that they are meant to be exploited, but that there are people who are "better" than them and therefore should have the power to exploit them. How feudalistic of us.
"and speaking against exploitation. so many people have been forced into thinking they’re meant to be exploited, and once they lie cheat and steal their way up the ladder they get to exploit others. the concept of imagining a different society is so foreign to so many people"
This entire exploitation thing from Labor Theory of Value is just a made up fallacy.
The very phrase "value is objective" is a logical contradiction. What is value? Value by definition is the perceived importance, significance, relevance etc. of something by an individual or a group. The categorization of something as "valuable" thus depends on the *subjective* ends or perceptions of the individual. Value by definition is thus subjective.
@@saricubra2867
Worker: Please sir, i really need my wage raised. Me and my family can't afford insulin. We really need money to buy it.
You as a boss: What is value? Value by definition is the perceived importance, significance, revelance, etc of someghing by an individual or a group.
I've occasionally used "everything is a co-op" to describe Marxism and how it's different from the totalitarian communism we've seen various countries implement.
That's a great way to put it. Sadly we're so far removed from the idea of co-ops my dad who got a graduate degree in business and economics had literally never heard of the idea of a co-op until I told him about it. The average person doesn't even know that corporations could exist in any other way.
Marx did made Labor Theory of value, which has been debunked by Subjective Theory of value years latter.
It's funny how absurd labor theory is. If i like a musical artist, somehow there's exploitation there therefore i shouldn't like it.
If i have a dog that i care for him, i'm doing explotation too...
That's because your description doesn't work as a system. At least not in diverse societies. National Socialism had a similar objective and was sustemically more popular, because there was little to no diversity.
@@extremosaur Sure it does. It worked for thousands of years before capitalism even existed. To quote the notorious line, “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”
Also, the nazis did not try to form co-ops of everything; their ruthless methods of consolidation of all economic and industrial assets throughout the country is not forming a co-op, regardless of what terminology they used to describe it. What they were doing was what we know of as a very basic centrally planned economy.
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state.
I. Love. Work. It’s really all I want. No need for this “human time.” Sounds like a terrible waste of time, and it could increase the terrifying idea of “feeling feelings.” Egads. What a nightmare. Hard pass.
Some theory reading suggestions to get started:
1. The Principles of Communism - Friederich Engels
2. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Friederich Engels
3. Wage Labour and Capital - Karl Marx
4. Value, Price and Profit - Karl Marx
5. Critique of the Gotha Program - Karl Marx
Bonus material:
6. State and Revolution - Vladimir Lenin
7. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Vladimir Lenin
I'm a little blown away at how brazenly you ignore the worst parts of Marx and the best parts of the free market. Is this the only way Marx can be defended? Is it possible to be accurate while still believing his ideas functioned?
that's a bit like saying the worst part of Marx and the best parts of legoland
I'm scared of Marx. He's too handsome.
I think Marx is worth studying, and even if I disagree with some of his conclusions I respect the insight he had into how he analysed the economic structures of his time. Much of what he said back then still does apply to today.
My issue isn't necessarily with Marx, it's with the people who came after. And although modern day communists and socialists will swear up and down that they are NOT like the Soviets, or the Khmer Rouge or Maoist China.... they tend to use the same language, flags and symbols, which sort of generates suspicion. You'd think if their real goal was to convince people to become communist or socialist, they'd do away with the symbols that were often used by some very bad societies, but curiously, they don't. They also refuse to update their jargon and their language - instead insisting that everyone else learn new definitions.
I often get the feeling that the communists and the hard-core socialists almost don't want to win. They're so invested in being the "misunderstood, downtrodden outsiders struggling against the ignorant masses and their evil masters" that genuine understanding and better PR would actually damage their moral. If they made their concepts more accessible and easily understood, they'd probably be mortified because then they couldn't pretend they were intellectually superior to "the sheep".
It's hard to take a communist seriously when they say "We're NOTHING like the USSR" when they're waving around a sickle and hammer flag and shouting "COMRADE". If you don't want people to think that.... maybe stop doing those things? But if the actual goal is to wrap yourselves in the aesthetics of the movement and gain "outsider cred", then by all means, keep on using terms and symbols that many don't understand, or detest. Because I have the sneaking suspicion that for many communists, being effective isn't really the goal. Feeling good about being a "revolutionary" is the actual goal.
I don’t take those people seriously either. The ussr and mao’s china were good, although the Khmer Rouge objectively weren’t socialist. “Socialists” who disagree are not really socialists. It seems you are only familiar with western, unserious marxists, stereotypical upper-middle class college students who think that they’re a socialist just because they like bernie sanders (not a socialist). Most marxist movements around the globe are deeply serious, populist groups who actively fight for the liberation of the working class.
Most people get their understanding of Marx from capitalists. Sad times.
this is, no joke, one of the best introductory videos to Marxism (and even communism as it explicitly not being "state owns everything") I've ever seen, and I've seen quite a few by people with multiple political motives
Wow, a good introduction to Marx is... introducing Marx, wow, you telling me portraying him as a lazy baby-eating redskined jew is intellectually dishonest? Damn, fr? On God? On God, fr fr? Do you feel the sarcasm or should i add another "on god"?
(RUclips notifications bad, im spamming so you read this)
LOL yeah hard pass for me. I came from Cuba, and I don't need to experience the wonders of Communism again.
Cut them some slack. It's been embargoed for 60 years and it's a tiny island
@@stickmouse5002 you go live over there and see how much slack you cut them after a week.
@@Driftking305forlife Do I really need to emphasize the intensity of the embargo and the size and population of the island to you?
Just to be clear, when Marx uses the term “Dictatorship of The Proletariat” he doesn’t mean a one-party dictatorship or one-man dictatorship but instead he means the dominance of one class over another, in other words the dominance of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, I must admit if was next to Marx, I would say “dude I get what you’re saying but that’s an unfortunate use of term, people are going to think you mean an tyrannical dictatorship, best to use the term Dominance of The Proletariat instead”.
definitely see what you're saying.
Yeah, it's just a matter of definition shifting. Dictatorship didn't mean then what it means now.
You just said "Marx meant Soviet Democracy" with extra steps.
"Dictatorship" is an old roman political form that didn't had that bad rep before WW2. The connotation today is just different.
The problem is communist governments only work the best when they have a strongman at the top running the show. Someone who is not necessarily a good bureaucrat but also one who has a larger than life and charismatic/magnetic personality. This is a necessity when it comes to top down centralized economic and social planning. It also has the unfortunate effect of requiring them to kill anyone who may disagree with their decisions, leadership style or are resistant to change. Eventually with absolute power, they are compelled to kill everyone who is a political threat to them, perceived or otherwise.
People who have lived under his disasterous ideology.
I would love a follow up video on Mikhail Bakunin and Anarchism. Anarchism is thrown around so much by figures, left, right, and center without really understanding the ideology. Bakunin is also famous, or infamous depending on your thoughts on Marx, for his criticism of Marx's political thought around the State.
Anarchism doesn't get discussed in academic contexts enough. (a lot of the marxists in academia are champaigne elitists out of touch with social movements and Anarchism is way to radical for these milquetoast ass academics.). Graeber was cool as hell but sadly he got kicked out of Yale.
Can we at least come together that "profit" and "compensation" don't mean exactly the same thing? Nothing is more aggravating than having someone yell "Why shouldn't farmers get paid for their food!?" when I talk about limiting how much retailers can make off the sale.
"The farmers were already paid, my dude. And the worse the farmers are paid, the more the agriculture industry, and the grocers industry make in profits, paid out to shareholders in dividends; bonus points for underpaying child laborers to keep those margins high."
You can be a capitalist while also holding the belief that individuals have inherent value and that people should be fairly compensated for their labor. All changing to communism or socialism would do is replace the current aristocracy with another, and slightly change the justification they use to remain in the aristocracy. How the proponents of communism don't realize this absolutely blows my mind; it's yall just threw up your hands and said "fuck it I quit lets just have a genocide"
I understand the point of the video, but the title is all kinds of misleading. Jesus didn't outline a very cogent view of how to get to heaven. He had like 2 rules and basically everything else was thought up by the organization around it which grew from his life and worship. Does that mean anyone who doesn't follow the Catholic church isn't a Christian? Catholics probably will say yes. You reading this, probably not. That's basically what defines a Marxist in the modern world
Clearly, i do not believe it makes sense to be a Marxist in the current year. He gets it wrong from the get-go with surplus value and he'd know that had he even run a business and had to take in operating costs (Spolier, if the only thing into consideration for the price of a product was work done by the laborers, it could be a lot lower while the business still exists and everyone has a job), and fundamentally the relative theory of value works as a much better economic framework for understanding costs.
Marxism is only attractive because it gives power to intellectuals who otherwise don't have it, and the industrialized world makes us feel like like tiny cogs in an unending machine taking away all power from us. With the decline in religion as well, it provides an attractive moral framework in its absence. It's not so much a useful tool but more of a popular trend from people who feel that something is wrong and giving them something to aim their anger at because the world is complicated and we like simple answers.
If only we could split a country in a north and south and see how it goes over a 70 year period.
LOL! This comment wins the whole thread.
Marx never envisioned something like Korea or Vietnam.
North Korea is heavily sanctioned, so you would at least need to start from the same baseline.
Also the peak of capitalism sent their troops to communist rice farmers which they outnumbered 100/1 and still lost, then let their veterans rot on the streets and decide its better to shoot children from drones.
Things like this are the reason the USA is much underdeveloped compared to countries like Switzerland, Western Europe and Scandinavia (source: General metrics like life expectancy, HDI, IHDI, freedom of science etc...) which actually implemented some ideas Marx would approve of.
Speaking as a historian-- there is no such thing as "cultural Marxism." By design, Marx thought material conditions determined ALL facets of an individual's internal world. He did not care about culture. He did not write about gender, race, or sexuality as "identities" so any attempt to connect Marx to these ideas is dumb or malicious.
And proletariat is an idea more real than gender race or sexuality?)
amen.
@@kotovnikthegreat he believed so, yes.
Therefore radical collectivism is not exclusive to marxism, therefore saying that Marxism is the source of this is just a fallacy.
Radical collectivism or collectivism in general always existed.
@@shortourt14 do you believe so?
the things you learn when you read books instead of banning them
Marx's theory of value is flawed: Surplus value is not created in production, only the buyer of a product can pay for it on the market, but that does not have to be the case.
You can only produce the conditions for surplus value payments, not the surplus values themselves.
An entrepreneur can only estimate what surplus value he can demand on the market, under certain circumstances he cannot demand any and sometimes not even full reimbursement of costs.
The surplus value that the entrepreneur estimates is an expected surplus value.
Since surplus value is part of value, there can only be an expected value on the production side of commodity society.
Marx tried to describe the creation of value with a formula that he applied to the production side of commodity society, since for him the market has no significance for the creation of value:
W = c + v + m.
W value of a product of labor
c constant capital (proportionately the costs for raw materials, supplies, premises, electricity, in Marx's case also machines, etc. per product)
v variable capital (proportionately the costs for labor - in Marx only human labor)
s surplus value (is created by the labor (in Marx only human labor) in the so-called unpaid working time).
Since there is only one expected surplus value on the production side, there can only be one expected value there:
W|expected = c|cost factor, replacement expected + v|cost factor, replacement expected + s|expected.
In addition, the surplus value is not paid on the costs, but on the replacement of the costs. If the surplus value were paid on the costs, it would not be surplus value, but a partial replacement of the costs!
Only on the market, when a buyer buys the product of labor, can surplus value arise, namely when the buyer completely replaces the costs and pays even more - the surplus is the surplus value! Thus, the value is created on the market and not within the framework of production. Value is a social relationship between buyer and seller.
Marx's false belief that value was created through production led to many other errors that in practice led to major problems in the economy of socialist states: the importance of the market was not recognized and value creation was misjudged: the expected values of the production side of commodity society were interpreted as real values.
In this way, the economy became increasingly ineffective over time until it collapsed.
Part of this misdevelopment was that no value was assigned to natural goods, etc., and that the permanent money surplus (money was put into circulation according to the supposedly produced values) made it increasingly difficult to recognize what was being produced and how effectively what was being used.
I think anyone who has not experienced socialism cannot really understand it.
The moment you mentioned turning flax into Linen into coats, I started to get Kapital PTSD.
Breath of fresh air, a video about Marxism that actually is talking about Marxism.
10:20 - Is a bold lie. He left out policy #7, factories are owned by the state. How about #5? Which literally says "monopoly state capitalism"? Even policy #1 is all property is owned by the state and you pay rent to the state. Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss, as was the case with the Bolsheviks and every other Marxist "revolution". By design. It is why the power-hungry are always Marxists. They lure you in with false promises of prosperity, when really it is an ideology of fascist power.
One thing I must hard disagree on Marx is the end of specialization. I don't want someone who spends most of their time at a rabbit shelter to operate on me nor do I want someone to be on an airplane with a jack-of-all trades.
The end of specialization that Marx was talking about was nothing but how factories make people not work on creating the whole product start to finish, but instead have people do one specific task over and over and over again. Like in a car factory, one guy just installs the windows all day every day. This person will feel alienated from the work as he does not get to see the end result of his labor, and will also get extremely bored and therefor unhappy. The other thing this will result in is that people won’t have actual skills they build. Being able to assemble an entire car is a skill, but being able to screw on the bolts of the wheels just isn’t.
Who's afraid of him?
Mostly people who have never read him.
Keep up good work WC 👍