Thank you for starting explaining Marxism so clearly. I learned new perspectives on Marx. I look forward to future videos. Thanks for the education. I love this channel.
It's true, Marx’s materialism is not properly about denying the reality of ideas, but about rejecting the notion that ideas or consciousness are the primary forces shaping material reality. Instead, Marx argued that the material conditions of life-such as economic structures, the relations of production, and the material needs of human beings-shape human consciousness and ideas. This view is encapsulated in his historical materialism, which holds that the material conditions of society fundamentally determine its development. That said, he was opposed to religion because he considered it to be something that produces alienation. For him, Religion helps to obscure the material causes of suffering, such as exploitation, inequality, and oppression, providing a way to endure pain and suffering, but doing so, according to him, by masking its true sources. He critiques religion as illusory happiness-a false or distorted sense of fulfillment that distracts people from their real, material needs. For Marx, religion serves as an opiate, providing consolation for suffering and alienation, but only by disguising the true sources of these issues. He thinks that Religion offers people a sense of hope and joy, but that it does so in a way that keeps them from addressing the real conditions causing their suffering. He argues that true happiness for human beings is not found in religion or spiritual consolation, but in material well-being and the transformation of the social conditions that cause alienation and exploitation. Real happiness would come when people have control over their material existence, when they are no longer "oppressed by unjust systems like capitalism". Thus, the abolition of religion is tied to a deeper goal-the abolition of the material conditions that cause human suffering. For him religion must be critiqued because it would serve as a barrier to real liberation by making people accept their alienated state and their suffering as part of a divine plan or inevitable reality. Marx emphasizes that the "disillusionment" brought about by the critique of religion is liberating because it enables people to regain their senses. In the "alienated condition", people are unable to truly recognize themselves or shape their own reality. Instead, they are trapped in a fantasy world supposedly created by religion and other ideologies. Religion for him serves as an illusory Sun that revolves around humans, offering them meaning and direction, but only by distorting their actual lived experiences. Once the "illusion of religion" is removed, people can regain their agency-they can begin to shape their lives according to real, material conditions. The true Sun around which they should revolve is not an external divine force but their own human potential and capacity for self-realization. This is Marx’s humanism-the belief that human beings, when free from alienation and oppression, can act consciously to shape their own destinies. For him, human life is first and foremost a biological and material process. Without food, shelter, and clothing, survival itself becomes impossible, and other human pursuits-like philosophy, art, or morality-are meaningless. This is Marx’s materialism in action: before any higher-level concerns (such as ideas about justice, morality, or religion) can even be addressed, human beings must first ensure that their basic, material needs are met. If a society or an individual fails to meet these needs, they will be in a state of suffering and privation, which prevents any further development of ideas or social progress. He argues that these abstract discussions can’t be the starting point for a genuine understanding of human society. For him, such abstract ideas (God, morality, justice) are secondary. They emerge from material life, not the other way around. Religion, for example, in his view arises when people face material hardship and alienation in society, and use religion to explain or justify their suffering. Morality and justice have meanings and functions based on the material conditions of society-what's considered "just" or "moral" in one society may not be the same in another, and it usually reflects the interests of those who hold power. Thus, he critiques philosophical approaches that ignore material realities. For him it doesn’t make sense to talk about justice or morality if we haven’t first looked at how people meet their material needs and how society organizes that production. Now, while it is undeniable that humans have material needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.), to define the human being only in terms of material needs is to neglect the rational and moral dimensions of human nature. Human beings are not simply animals that act to satisfy their instincts; they are rational beings, capable of discerning truth, understanding moral principles, and engaging in deliberate action based on these principles. One of the distinguishing features of humanity is that reason and moral conscience must guide our decisions. Humans are aware of moral obligations-for instance, the duty not to murder, to respect others, and to live in harmony with others. These moral duties are evident to us, not simply because they are social conventions or pragmatic guidelines, but because we have an inherent understanding of what is morally right. In the words of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, humans are called to live according to the moral law inscribed within us-a law which commands us to treat others always as ends in themselves, and not merely as means to an end. Thus, our most fundamental need is not the satisfaction of material needs, but the duty to live according to the truth-specifically, the truth about what is morally right and just. To live morally right is to live in a way that honors our nature as rational, responsible beings who are capable of discerning good from evil, and who have an obligation to act according to that discernment. Furthermore, material needs do not sustain the soul, which is immaterial. Even if our physical needs (food, water, shelter) are met, this does not guarantee the flourishing of the soul or the moral life. In fact, the life of the soul is not dependent on the mere fulfillment of material needs or desires, but on living in a way that reflects truth, goodness, and justice. The immaterial aspects of human existence-such as our intellect, will, and moral conscience-cannot be nourished by physical things. Human beings have an inherent moral nature that calls us to live in accordance with objective moral truths. While fulfilling basic needs can support the biological life, they do not suffice for the true flourishing of human life, which is realized in the pursuit of moral goodness. For instance, the satisfaction of hunger or thirst doesn’t necessarily make us virtuous or moral individuals. It is the moral decisions we make-whether we choose to be kind, just, truthful, or courageous-that define the true quality of our lives as rational beings. The duty to live morally right is something that we are aware of and have the capacity to follow, even if it is difficult or goes against our immediate desires. For example, we may feel tempted to act selfishly, but the moral law teaches us to act selflessly for the good of others. In this way, the fulfillment of our material needs may be necessary for survival, but it is the moral imperative to live in accordance with the truth and to will what is good that forms the essence of the good life. When we say that human beings have a duty to live according to the truth, we mean that we are responsible for living in a way that corresponds to objective moral principles-principles that are not contingent on individual desires, cultural norms, or material conditions. Thus, the moral life-the pursuit of virtue, justice, and truth-is not an optional or secondary aspect of human existence, but the most fundamental need of human beings. This is what gives meaning to our lives. Our rational nature compels us to ask questions about goodness, justice, and purpose, and it is through living morally that we fulfill our true human potential. This calls for more than simply satisfying material needs; it calls for the formation of our will and intellect according to the highest standards of truth and morality. Material needs, though important for biological survival, do not define what it means to be truly human. What defines us is our capacity to choose what is good, to act justly, and to live according to the truth-a truth that transcends mere materialism. Therefore, the highest human calling is to live in moral harmony with the truth, for in doing so, we fulfill our true nature as rational and moral beings. This is what gives life its ultimate meaning and purpose.
What happens when intellect, sophistication and overwhelming loveliness come together and manifest in one human being?...............this channel has the answer! Greetings from Germany.
Calling focus on labor materialism prevents true materialism from taking root. In fact, value can only be subtracted, never added. The raw materials and things produced are all that matter. The pollution produced is always worse that just leaving it in the ground. Obviously we have to survive, but there are ways to minimize the harm that survival does.
This poem by Marx has a very dark and somber tone (especially considering he was once a professed Christian): "So a god has snatched from me my all In the curse and rack of Destiny. All his worlds are gone beyond recall! Nothing but revenge is left to me! On myself revenge I'll proudly wreak, On that being, that enthroned Lord, Make my strength a patchwork of what's weak, Leave my better self without reward! I shall build my throne high overhead, Cold, tremendous shall its summit be. For its bulwark-- superstitious dread, For its Marshall--blackest agony. Who looks on it with a healthy eye, Shall turn back, struck deathly pale and dumb; Clutched by blind and chill Mortality May his happiness prepare its tomb. And the Almighty's lightning shall rebound From that massive iron giant. If he bring my walls and towers down, Eternity shall raise them up, defiant".
Congrats -- I see your video has inspired some provocative discussions via the comments. When viewers engage and interact like this, you should be pleased.
Material conditions driving ideas make a lot sense when civilizations were isolated from each other, each one developing based on their geography and climate. In early civilizations, these material conditions shaped the childhood, so to speak, of civilizations and countries. However, it is hard to deny that once these ideas are created (mostly by material conditions), they have a very strong inertia. Even with industrialization, East and West have taken very different paths
@@VictorKB96 Material conditions are not exclusive to any society or period in history. "Even with industrialization, East and West have taken very different paths" - this is exactly an example of how different material conditions lead to different outcomes.
@@duncan.o-vic But now that the reached similar levels of development (industrialized and urbanized), their culture doesn't converge. This takes longer because of the cultural inertia
@@VictorKB96 Except they're not at the same level of development, and they still are influenced strongly by the gap that existed a hundred + years ago. Their cultures converge as much as material conditions allow them to. There is no such thing as cultural inertia, you're trying to take things out of context in order to explain things you don't entirely understand. Every society is inert and changes when material conditions facilitate the change.
Wow this is better than my college lectures on marxism. Marx made a lot of sense especially in today's world of inequality, inflation, and risk of AI replacing workers. However, i dont agree with a revolution id rather have stronger unions for employees. i hope you have other social media accounts like instagram. thanks again and cheers.
I think you skipped the concept of 'surplus' (not to be confused with 'surplus value') in your short excourse to historical materialism. The ability to produce more than necessary for one's own survival is what allowed the development of the society.
@@literature.café Oh yeah, sorry, it was so quick I missed it.😄 I still think it warranted some expansion. Like the fact that surplus is produced thanks to the productivity increase from technological advancements. And that various forms of human exploitation were historically designed to expropriate the produced surplus.
"So as human beings, we have material needs, so we all need to eat, drink, and find shelter to survive. And if we don't meet these needs, nothing else matters. And Marx puts it simply, 'Life involves, before everything else, eating and drinking, housing and clothing, and various other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself'. Marx argues that it doesn't make sense to start a philosophical theory by talking about God, morality, or justice if we haven't first explained how people actually satisfy their basic material needs." Now, while it is undeniable that humans have material needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.), to define the human being only in terms of material needs is to neglect the rational and moral dimensions of human nature. Human beings are not simply animals that act to satisfy their instincts; they are rational beings, capable of discerning truth, understanding moral principles, and engaging in deliberate action based on these principles. Thus, our most fundamental need is not the satisfaction of material needs, but the duty to live according to the truth-specifically, the truth about what is morally right and just. To live morally right is to live in a way that honors our nature as rational, responsible beings who are capable of discerning good from evil, and who have an obligation to act according to that discernment. One of the distinguishing features of humanity is that reason and moral conscience must guide our decisions. Humans are aware of moral obligations-for instance, the duty not to murder, to respect others, and to live in harmony with others. These moral duties are evident to us, not simply because they are social conventions or pragmatic guidelines, but because we have an inherent understanding of what is morally right. In the words of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, humans are called to live according to the moral law inscribed within us-a law which commands us to treat others always as ends in themselves, and not merely as means to an end. While fulfilling basic needs can support the biological life, they do not suffice for the true flourishing of human life, which is realized in the pursuit of moral goodness. The duty to live morally right is something that we are aware of and have the capacity to follow, even if it is difficult or goes against our immediate desires. For example, we may feel tempted to act selfishly, but the moral law teaches us to act selflessly for the good of others. In this way, the fulfillment of our material needs may be necessary for survival, but it is the moral imperative to live in accordance with the truth and to will what is good that forms the essence of the good life. Thus, the moral life-the pursuit of virtue, justice, and truth-is not an optional or secondary aspect of human existence, but the most fundamental need of human beings. This is what gives meaning to our lives. Our rational nature compels us to ask questions about goodness, justice, and purpose, and it is through living morally that we fulfill our true human potential. This calls for more than simply satisfying material needs; it calls for the formation of our will and intellect according to the highest standards of truth and morality. Material needs, though important for biological survival, do not define what it means to be truly human. What defines us is our capacity to choose what is good, to act justly, and to live according to the truth-a truth that transcends mere materialism. Therefore, the highest human calling is to live in moral harmony with the truth, for in doing so, we fulfill our true nature as rational and moral beings. This is what gives life its ultimate meaning and purpose. Moreover, the provision of material needs does not necessarily guarantee bodily life. For it is not enough, for the preservation of the body’s life, to have food and drink, clothing, shelter, and medicine. We will all eventually die, and then the important issue will not be any material possessions, nor even the presence of those with whom we share the closest blood relation, but rather our spiritual and moral condition before God.
Marx does not define humans only by material needs, although intelectual and any other need or features is in its essence material (because there is no proof of spirit, and there is no need for spirit to explain anything). Moral is nothing but a set of rules humans follow in order to increase likelyhood of desired outcomes (covering their needs). When you cover basic needs, new needs arise. Qualitative data is subjective experience. While people will rather define themselves by what makes them special, exceptions are not what we want to rely on when understanding the world around us. Quantitative data shows that material conditions lead to material outcomes, and that is what Marx writes about.
@duncan.o-vic The duty I spoke of is to live according to the truth, a self-evident duty for every rational being. And regarding your reduction of human needs to the material, it is evidently incorrect, for we are not constituted of matter alone, as even sensory perception would then be impossible, since we receive the form of the material object without matter in our senses.
How did you miss Marx's tautology? Marx caught it, and explained it away with a non-explanation explanation... Marx's Foundational Tautology Marx writes (Chapter 24, first paragraph, Capital, 1867), "Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value." See the tautology? How did this tautology get past the initial reviews? How did this tautology survive the intervening 157 years without being discovered, except for this political scientist? This again illustrates the magnitude of the Marxist co-option of our institutions. Let's analyze the sentence's tautology... Surplus value is generated by capital, but capital is created by surplus value!* A conversation that clarifies the capital/surplus value tautology: John: What do we need to start the capitalist economy? Peter: Capital would help, because Marx said, "capital arises from surplus value". John: Okay, I'm looking for capital, but I can't find it! Peter: That's because you need surplus value, because Marx said, "surplus value emanates from capital". John: Okay, I'm looking for surplus value, but I can't find it either! Peter: That's because you need capital! In Capital, Marx begins his analysis with an already existing capitalist economy. Marx can't explain how the capitalist economy came into existence because such an economy couldn't come into existence according to Marx's peculiar analysis of the capitalist economy where surplus-value created capital must first exist, but since surplus-value doesn't exist yet, there can be no capital to begin the capitalist economy. To overcome this inherent contradiction in Marx's "investigation", he begins Capital where we find an already existing capitalist economy: “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities," its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.” Let's rewrite that first paragraph from Capital, correcting the errors... “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of capital," its unit being the rate of interest. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of interest rates.” ------------------------------------ * Marx recognizes the tautology, and, as usual with other self-imploding observations, erects a non-defense defense: "Chapter Twenty-Six: The Secret of Primitive Accumulation We have seen how money is changed into capital; how through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalistic accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalistic mode of production, but its starting point." Marx's solution to his tautology ("vicious circle") is to tell us that the Capitalist mode of production commenced by "supposing"! Marx magically creates a primitive accumulation of capital base upon which the capitalist mode of production flowered from, but this "supposing" primitive accumulation of capital doesn't solve the tautology, it merely pushes the tautology further back in time. According to Marx, In order to have capital one needs surplus value ("capital arises from surplus value"), but surplus value can't exist without first capital existing ("surplus value emanates from capital")! Pushing back a tautology to an earlier time period doesn't solve the tautology. Nothing can.
Addendum Marx's latent vindictive nature emerges... Soon after transferring university from Bonn to Berlin, the young Karl Marx, up until then a warm-hearted Lutheran, ended up waging a war against God, because he accepted as true the Lutheran belief that his libertine behavior in Berlin consigned him to Hell. So Marx concocted a materialist philosophy to wage war against God and humanity, as the following poems identify: "Thus Heaven I've forfeited, I know it full well, My soul, once true to God, Is chosen for hell." ...and... "With disdain I will throw my gauntlet Full in the face of the world, And see the collapse of this pygmy giant Whose fall will not stifle my ardour. Then will I wander godlike and victorious Through the ruins of the world And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator." Hence, in 1843 Marx directed his followers to implement the "abolition of religion", and the destruction of those civilizations "whose spiritual aroma is religion".* ------------------------- * In 1843 Marx directed his followers to implement the "abolition of religion", and the destruction of those civilizations "whose spiritual aroma is religion"... Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx (1843) "The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion." ...and... "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." ...and... "It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world." Now you know what Marxists are referring to when they utter the phrase, "The Struggle"... "The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion."
Do not envy the ones who have the by using violence. Their need to control each other will spiral out of control. By their infighting, their system will collapse.
Marx worked non stop, just not on an industrial factory floor. He was a prolific journalist, editor, academic, author and philosopher. He was not a member of the bourgeoisie, but was bankrolled by Engels, who is better described as a class traitor to the ruling class than a hypocrite.
@@lechienchaud3904 he was never working class and never knew anything about them. he is a fraud and at least his partner Engles was a racist and pretty sure Marx was all up using the N word as well
@@kylecooper6740 can you write or read without your hands? if so, you might still be forced to acknowledge what you already know but are facetiously misrepresenting here - "intellectual" work is as much "work" as any work.
Thank you for starting explaining Marxism so clearly. I learned new perspectives on Marx. I look forward to future videos. Thanks for the education. I love this channel.
thank you for expressing the genuine views of marx in the most lovely way possible 💘
I salute your parents on inspiring your curiosity via great books, travel, and learning languages --- bravo👏👏Kampai !
Always a pleasure to get a new video from this channel. Interesting topics, presented in a way that pleases the eyes and the ears. Top content.
❤️
Really informative. Kudos!
You’re amazing at what you do!
It's true, Marx’s materialism is not properly about denying the reality of ideas, but about rejecting the notion that ideas or consciousness are the primary forces shaping material reality. Instead, Marx argued that the material conditions of life-such as economic structures, the relations of production, and the material needs of human beings-shape human consciousness and ideas. This view is encapsulated in his historical materialism, which holds that the material conditions of society fundamentally determine its development.
That said, he was opposed to religion because he considered it to be something that produces alienation. For him, Religion helps to obscure the material causes of suffering, such as exploitation, inequality, and oppression, providing a way to endure pain and suffering, but doing so, according to him, by masking its true sources.
He critiques religion as illusory happiness-a false or distorted sense of fulfillment that distracts people from their real, material needs. For Marx, religion serves as an opiate, providing consolation for suffering and alienation, but only by disguising the true sources of these issues. He thinks that Religion offers people a sense of hope and joy, but that it does so in a way that keeps them from addressing the real conditions causing their suffering.
He argues that true happiness for human beings is not found in religion or spiritual consolation, but in material well-being and the transformation of the social conditions that cause alienation and exploitation. Real happiness would come when people have control over their material existence, when they are no longer "oppressed by unjust systems like capitalism".
Thus, the abolition of religion is tied to a deeper goal-the abolition of the material conditions that cause human suffering. For him religion must be critiqued because it would serve as a barrier to real liberation by making people accept their alienated state and their suffering as part of a divine plan or inevitable reality.
Marx emphasizes that the "disillusionment" brought about by the critique of religion is liberating because it enables people to regain their senses. In the "alienated condition", people are unable to truly recognize themselves or shape their own reality. Instead, they are trapped in a fantasy world supposedly created by religion and other ideologies. Religion for him serves as an illusory Sun that revolves around humans, offering them meaning and direction, but only by distorting their actual lived experiences.
Once the "illusion of religion" is removed, people can regain their agency-they can begin to shape their lives according to real, material conditions. The true Sun around which they should revolve is not an external divine force but their own human potential and capacity for self-realization. This is Marx’s humanism-the belief that human beings, when free from alienation and oppression, can act consciously to shape their own destinies.
For him, human life is first and foremost a biological and material process. Without food, shelter, and clothing, survival itself becomes impossible, and other human pursuits-like philosophy, art, or morality-are meaningless.
This is Marx’s materialism in action: before any higher-level concerns (such as ideas about justice, morality, or religion) can even be addressed, human beings must first ensure that their basic, material needs are met. If a society or an individual fails to meet these needs, they will be in a state of suffering and privation, which prevents any further development of ideas or social progress.
He argues that these abstract discussions can’t be the starting point for a genuine understanding of human society. For him, such abstract ideas (God, morality, justice) are secondary. They emerge from material life, not the other way around. Religion, for example, in his view arises when people face material hardship and alienation in society, and use religion to explain or justify their suffering. Morality and justice have meanings and functions based on the material conditions of society-what's considered "just" or "moral" in one society may not be the same in another, and it usually reflects the interests of those who hold power. Thus, he critiques philosophical approaches that ignore material realities. For him it doesn’t make sense to talk about justice or morality if we haven’t first looked at how people meet their material needs and how society organizes that production.
Now, while it is undeniable that humans have material needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.), to define the human being only in terms of material needs is to neglect the rational and moral dimensions of human nature. Human beings are not simply animals that act to satisfy their instincts; they are rational beings, capable of discerning truth, understanding moral principles, and engaging in deliberate action based on these principles.
One of the distinguishing features of humanity is that reason and moral conscience must guide our decisions. Humans are aware of moral obligations-for instance, the duty not to murder, to respect others, and to live in harmony with others. These moral duties are evident to us, not simply because they are social conventions or pragmatic guidelines, but because we have an inherent understanding of what is morally right. In the words of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, humans are called to live according to the moral law inscribed within us-a law which commands us to treat others always as ends in themselves, and not merely as means to an end.
Thus, our most fundamental need is not the satisfaction of material needs, but the duty to live according to the truth-specifically, the truth about what is morally right and just. To live morally right is to live in a way that honors our nature as rational, responsible beings who are capable of discerning good from evil, and who have an obligation to act according to that discernment.
Furthermore, material needs do not sustain the soul, which is immaterial. Even if our physical needs (food, water, shelter) are met, this does not guarantee the flourishing of the soul or the moral life. In fact, the life of the soul is not dependent on the mere fulfillment of material needs or desires, but on living in a way that reflects truth, goodness, and justice. The immaterial aspects of human existence-such as our intellect, will, and moral conscience-cannot be nourished by physical things.
Human beings have an inherent moral nature that calls us to live in accordance with objective moral truths. While fulfilling basic needs can support the biological life, they do not suffice for the true flourishing of human life, which is realized in the pursuit of moral goodness. For instance, the satisfaction of hunger or thirst doesn’t necessarily make us virtuous or moral individuals. It is the moral decisions we make-whether we choose to be kind, just, truthful, or courageous-that define the true quality of our lives as rational beings.
The duty to live morally right is something that we are aware of and have the capacity to follow, even if it is difficult or goes against our immediate desires. For example, we may feel tempted to act selfishly, but the moral law teaches us to act selflessly for the good of others. In this way, the fulfillment of our material needs may be necessary for survival, but it is the moral imperative to live in accordance with the truth and to will what is good that forms the essence of the good life.
When we say that human beings have a duty to live according to the truth, we mean that we are responsible for living in a way that corresponds to objective moral principles-principles that are not contingent on individual desires, cultural norms, or material conditions.
Thus, the moral life-the pursuit of virtue, justice, and truth-is not an optional or secondary aspect of human existence, but the most fundamental need of human beings. This is what gives meaning to our lives. Our rational nature compels us to ask questions about goodness, justice, and purpose, and it is through living morally that we fulfill our true human potential. This calls for more than simply satisfying material needs; it calls for the formation of our will and intellect according to the highest standards of truth and morality.
Material needs, though important for biological survival, do not define what it means to be truly human. What defines us is our capacity to choose what is good, to act justly, and to live according to the truth-a truth that transcends mere materialism. Therefore, the highest human calling is to live in moral harmony with the truth, for in doing so, we fulfill our true nature as rational and moral beings. This is what gives life its ultimate meaning and purpose.
What happens when intellect, sophistication and overwhelming loveliness come together and manifest in one human being?...............this channel has the answer!
Greetings from Germany.
Good job. Thank you.
Calling focus on labor materialism prevents true materialism from taking root. In fact, value can only be subtracted, never added. The raw materials and things produced are all that matter. The pollution produced is always worse that just leaving it in the ground. Obviously we have to survive, but there are ways to minimize the harm that survival does.
This poem by Marx has a very dark and somber tone (especially considering he was once a professed Christian): "So a god has snatched from me my all
In the curse and rack of Destiny.
All his worlds are gone beyond recall!
Nothing but revenge is left to me!
On myself revenge I'll proudly wreak,
On that being, that enthroned Lord,
Make my strength a patchwork of what's weak,
Leave my better self without reward!
I shall build my throne high overhead,
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark-- superstitious dread,
For its Marshall--blackest agony.
Who looks on it with a healthy eye,
Shall turn back, struck deathly pale and dumb;
Clutched by blind and chill Mortality
May his happiness prepare its tomb.
And the Almighty's lightning shall rebound
From that massive iron giant.
If he bring my walls and towers down,
Eternity shall raise them up, defiant".
Verry well explained. Tank you.
Congrats -- I see your video has inspired some provocative discussions via the comments. When viewers engage and interact like this, you should be pleased.
Material conditions driving ideas make a lot sense when civilizations were isolated from each other, each one developing based on their geography and climate. In early civilizations, these material conditions shaped the childhood, so to speak, of civilizations and countries. However, it is hard to deny that once these ideas are created (mostly by material conditions), they have a very strong inertia. Even with industrialization, East and West have taken very different paths
Then you don't understand material conditions.
@@duncan.o-vic I do. I'm just pointing out that not every society is going to react to the same material conditions in the same way
@@VictorKB96 Material conditions are not exclusive to any society or period in history.
"Even with industrialization, East and West have taken very different paths" - this is exactly an example of how different material conditions lead to different outcomes.
@@duncan.o-vic But now that the reached similar levels of development (industrialized and urbanized), their culture doesn't converge. This takes longer because of the cultural inertia
@@VictorKB96 Except they're not at the same level of development, and they still are influenced strongly by the gap that existed a hundred + years ago. Their cultures converge as much as material conditions allow them to. There is no such thing as cultural inertia, you're trying to take things out of context in order to explain things you don't entirely understand. Every society is inert and changes when material conditions facilitate the change.
Wow this is better than my college lectures on marxism. Marx made a lot of sense especially in today's world of inequality, inflation, and risk of AI replacing workers.
However, i dont agree with a revolution id rather have stronger unions for employees.
i hope you have other social media accounts like instagram. thanks again and cheers.
I agree with you and yes, I do. - @annekathrrin
It’s always been class war love ❤
Thanks :)
Have you read philosophy of Swami Vivekananda?
was sagen denn anthropologen dazu?
I think you skipped the concept of 'surplus' (not to be confused with 'surplus value') in your short excourse to historical materialism. The ability to produce more than necessary for one's own survival is what allowed the development of the society.
Yes, that‘s true. I mentioned that shortly in the later part of the video where is was referring to the rise of classless society.
@@literature.café Oh yeah, sorry, it was so quick I missed it.😄 I still think it warranted some expansion. Like the fact that surplus is produced thanks to the productivity increase from technological advancements. And that various forms of human exploitation were historically designed to expropriate the produced surplus.
What did Marx say about planned obsolescence and Vanadium Steel?
.
"So as human beings, we have material needs, so we all need to eat, drink, and find shelter to survive. And if we don't meet these needs, nothing else matters. And Marx puts it simply, 'Life involves, before everything else, eating and drinking, housing and clothing, and various other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself'. Marx argues that it doesn't make sense to start a philosophical theory by talking about God, morality, or justice if we haven't first explained how people actually satisfy their basic material needs."
Now, while it is undeniable that humans have material needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.), to define the human being only in terms of material needs is to neglect the rational and moral dimensions of human nature. Human beings are not simply animals that act to satisfy their instincts; they are rational beings, capable of discerning truth, understanding moral principles, and engaging in deliberate action based on these principles.
Thus, our most fundamental need is not the satisfaction of material needs, but the duty to live according to the truth-specifically, the truth about what is morally right and just. To live morally right is to live in a way that honors our nature as rational, responsible beings who are capable of discerning good from evil, and who have an obligation to act according to that discernment.
One of the distinguishing features of humanity is that reason and moral conscience must guide our decisions. Humans are aware of moral obligations-for instance, the duty not to murder, to respect others, and to live in harmony with others. These moral duties are evident to us, not simply because they are social conventions or pragmatic guidelines, but because we have an inherent understanding of what is morally right. In the words of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, humans are called to live according to the moral law inscribed within us-a law which commands us to treat others always as ends in themselves, and not merely as means to an end.
While fulfilling basic needs can support the biological life, they do not suffice for the true flourishing of human life, which is realized in the pursuit of moral goodness.
The duty to live morally right is something that we are aware of and have the capacity to follow, even if it is difficult or goes against our immediate desires. For example, we may feel tempted to act selfishly, but the moral law teaches us to act selflessly for the good of others. In this way, the fulfillment of our material needs may be necessary for survival, but it is the moral imperative to live in accordance with the truth and to will what is good that forms the essence of the good life.
Thus, the moral life-the pursuit of virtue, justice, and truth-is not an optional or secondary aspect of human existence, but the most fundamental need of human beings. This is what gives meaning to our lives. Our rational nature compels us to ask questions about goodness, justice, and purpose, and it is through living morally that we fulfill our true human potential. This calls for more than simply satisfying material needs; it calls for the formation of our will and intellect according to the highest standards of truth and morality.
Material needs, though important for biological survival, do not define what it means to be truly human. What defines us is our capacity to choose what is good, to act justly, and to live according to the truth-a truth that transcends mere materialism. Therefore, the highest human calling is to live in moral harmony with the truth, for in doing so, we fulfill our true nature as rational and moral beings. This is what gives life its ultimate meaning and purpose.
Moreover, the provision of material needs does not necessarily guarantee bodily life. For it is not enough, for the preservation of the body’s life, to have food and drink, clothing, shelter, and medicine. We will all eventually die, and then the important issue will not be any material possessions, nor even the presence of those with whom we share the closest blood relation, but rather our spiritual and moral condition before God.
Marx does not define humans only by material needs, although intelectual and any other need or features is in its essence material (because there is no proof of spirit, and there is no need for spirit to explain anything). Moral is nothing but a set of rules humans follow in order to increase likelyhood of desired outcomes (covering their needs). When you cover basic needs, new needs arise. Qualitative data is subjective experience.
While people will rather define themselves by what makes them special, exceptions are not what we want to rely on when understanding the world around us. Quantitative data shows that material conditions lead to material outcomes, and that is what Marx writes about.
@duncan.o-vic The duty I spoke of is to live according to the truth, a self-evident duty for every rational being.
And regarding your reduction of human needs to the material, it is evidently incorrect, for we are not constituted of matter alone, as even sensory perception would then be impossible, since we receive the form of the material object without matter in our senses.
@ no.
How did you miss Marx's tautology? Marx caught it, and explained it away with a non-explanation explanation...
Marx's Foundational Tautology
Marx writes (Chapter 24, first paragraph, Capital, 1867), "Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value."
See the tautology? How did this tautology get past the initial reviews? How did this tautology survive the intervening 157 years without being discovered, except for this political scientist? This again illustrates the magnitude of the Marxist co-option of our institutions.
Let's analyze the sentence's tautology...
Surplus value is generated by capital, but capital is created by surplus value!*
A conversation that clarifies the capital/surplus value tautology:
John: What do we need to start the capitalist economy?
Peter: Capital would help, because Marx said, "capital arises from surplus value".
John: Okay, I'm looking for capital, but I can't find it!
Peter: That's because you need surplus value, because Marx said, "surplus value emanates from capital".
John: Okay, I'm looking for surplus value, but I can't find it either!
Peter: That's because you need capital!
In Capital, Marx begins his analysis with an already existing capitalist economy. Marx can't explain how the capitalist economy came into existence because such an economy couldn't come into existence according to Marx's peculiar analysis of the capitalist economy where surplus-value created capital must first exist, but since surplus-value doesn't exist yet, there can be no capital to begin the capitalist economy. To overcome this inherent contradiction in Marx's "investigation", he begins Capital where we find an already existing capitalist economy:
“The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities," its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.”
Let's rewrite that first paragraph from Capital, correcting the errors...
“The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of capital," its unit being the rate of interest. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of interest rates.”
------------------------------------
* Marx recognizes the tautology, and, as usual with other self-imploding observations, erects a non-defense defense:
"Chapter Twenty-Six: The Secret of Primitive Accumulation
We have seen how money is changed into capital; how through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalistic accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalistic mode of production, but its starting point."
Marx's solution to his tautology ("vicious circle") is to tell us that the Capitalist mode of production commenced by "supposing"! Marx magically creates a primitive accumulation of capital base upon which the capitalist mode of production flowered from, but this "supposing" primitive accumulation of capital doesn't solve the tautology, it merely pushes the tautology further back in time. According to Marx, In order to have capital one needs surplus value ("capital arises from surplus value"), but surplus value can't exist without first capital existing ("surplus value emanates from capital")! Pushing back a tautology to an earlier time period doesn't solve the tautology. Nothing can.
Addendum
Marx's latent vindictive nature emerges...
Soon after transferring university from Bonn to Berlin, the young Karl Marx, up until then a warm-hearted Lutheran, ended up waging a war against God, because he accepted as true the Lutheran belief that his libertine behavior in Berlin consigned him to Hell. So Marx concocted a materialist philosophy to wage war against God and humanity, as the following poems identify:
"Thus Heaven I've forfeited, I know it full well, My soul, once true to God, Is chosen for hell."
...and...
"With disdain I will throw my gauntlet Full in the face of the world, And see the collapse of this pygmy giant Whose fall will not stifle my ardour. Then will I wander godlike and victorious Through the ruins of the world And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator."
Hence, in 1843 Marx directed his followers to implement the "abolition of religion", and the destruction of those civilizations "whose spiritual aroma is religion".*
-------------------------
* In 1843 Marx directed his followers to implement the "abolition of religion", and the destruction of those civilizations "whose spiritual aroma is religion"...
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx (1843)
"The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion."
...and...
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
...and...
"It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world."
Now you know what Marxists are referring to when they utter the phrase, "The Struggle"...
"The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion."
Uh oh! I'm scared!
To be pessimistic, the system that survives is the one that can create the most effective form of violence(power).
That’s how we even got here in the first place. The essence of modern political thought is that power alone gets the job done at the end of the day.
Do not envy the ones who have the by using violence. Their need to control each other will spiral out of control. By their infighting, their system will collapse.
🌟🌟🌟
Amazing :)))
Philo- Bunny :D:D:D
Real capitalism has never been tried 😂
Ok, very nice. Now do Julius Evolas: "Eros and the mistery of love"
Or some Nietzsche?
I want to do Nietzsche soon :)
genial!!!!
Not literature. It's philosophy or poltics sure
first?
Was Marx a worker?
never
Marx worked non stop, just not on an industrial factory floor. He was a prolific journalist, editor, academic, author and philosopher. He was not a member of the bourgeoisie, but was bankrolled by Engels, who is better described as a class traitor to the ruling class than a hypocrite.
Marx spent his time complaining in pubs. He was not a man that worked with his hands.
@@lechienchaud3904 he was never working class and never knew anything about them. he is a fraud and at least his partner Engles was a racist and pretty sure Marx was all up using the N word as well
@@kylecooper6740 can you write or read without your hands? if so, you might still be forced to acknowledge what you already know but are facetiously misrepresenting here - "intellectual" work is as much "work" as any work.
Suddenly the ladies are digging Marx.
Good or bad?
@@ManoverSuperman
Good