Very strange how this video always talks in the past tense. News flash, alienation is still around in full-force in capitalism today! It is a part *of* capitalism.
totally agreed, alienation and exploitation are parts of capitalism tighten together like flesh and bones and impossible to separate from each other, only its forms are changing from time to time due to new circumstances
+Cipi SixZeroFour . I'm not a Marxist, but you characterizations here are clearly untrue for both capitalism and Marxism. You don't just work "if you want to" under capitalism. Necessity compels working for an income, and that necessity is backed up by the rules of the system, not simply natural inevitability. All systems are likely to require people working in jobs they don't love to death, one way or another. Most people under capitalism hate their jobs. This is hardly "choosing the job you want", except in the most minimal sense of not being forced to work as job at the end of a gun, which is a shoddy conception of freedom. There are many other forms of structural compulsion within capitalism that prevent people doing to jobs they want to do, and compel them to stay in jobs they hate. Also, the idea that people must work particular jobs at the direction of the state, without options, is not endemic to Marxism. Even in the Communist Manifesto, Marx says the exact opposite. The authoritarianism of 20th century officially socialist states were hardly representative of the entire tradition of Marxist thought, and some of their largest detractors have been Marxists.
Justin Mueller I have already lived under Communism. Capitalism beats Communism every time. No contest. The shittiest jobs are under Communism not under Capitalism. Under Capitalism you have what job you want, under Communism your job is what the Communist party wants for you. Only in Capitalism you get to choose since only unde Capitalism you're free. And under Capitalism work is not mandatory since you have the welfare state or you can inherit your parents business.
I love how they put everything in here in past tense as if this isn't the present reality. Because that would mean admitting that this current world is a hellscape and that powerful people need to be put in their place. But god forbid BBC, an established and very wealthy organization supported by both taxpayers and corporations, would want to do that.
This only goes over Marx and his observations during his lifetime, whether this operates similarly today doesn't necessarily matter in an very brief historical presentation. Everything doesn't have to be Doomer propaganda ;) For an another look at Marxism, capitalism, consumerist society and it's progression I recommend The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord. It was written in 1967 but it still has applicable concepts today.
concise and simple presentation of Marx's ideas but christ. why make it seem as though this is all something of the past? as though this is not something that exists in manners just as stark today?
I do realise the population of today is much higher, but even still, do you realise just how many people are dying every year due to 'structural violence'?
***** Firstly, quoting Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." I would love to see some statistical evidence to back up your claim that less people are starving today than ever before in history. Finally, you clearly don't understand the concept of Structural Violence. The actions of individuals and groups against others in this world may be a symptom of structural violence, but that is not what structural violence is, in and of itself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence
Peter Enns Past stays in the past and all we can hope for is a better future as that’s what tomorrow should mean for everyone and this dystopian and cynical way of living it’s not it
I like how Gillian Anderson narrates this video 👍🏼❤️ Here is the quote from Marx on alienation, from Das Kapital: "The fact that labour is external to the worker, i e, it does not belong to his essential being; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He is at home when he is not working, and when he is working he is not at home. His labour is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it's forced labour. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it".
Its not from das kapital, it's from the 1844 manuscripts, I read it in german but im pretty Sure that its from there. The part when he talked about alientation Was just perfect
Unfortunately this video dresses up Marx's Theory of Alienation, not as a general theory applicable even to modern Capitalism today, but as some specific and so simple as to apply to only 19th Century Manufacturing... I also don't think anyone really cares for the pot shots at Brand.
Ulezim do you think factory manufacturing isn't still happening today? where you do think all these mass produced goods are coming from? this is a problem if consumers don't want to acknowledge/aren't aware where their clothes and shoes and whatever else are coming from
maws francis I'm not sure that's what Ulezim meant. It is clearly a simple way to explain what happened then and it definitely, to me at least, shows up the problems with countries such as China now days.
Alienation is defined as alienated labor. In Karl Marx's Manuscripts, alienated labor refers to forced and involuntary labor in which the worker finds no purpose, no joy or happiness, no fulfillment of necessities, no independence or power, no mental or physical development. A person in this situation feels lonely, embarrassed, worthless, and unimportant. It is someone else's operation, it is not random, and it is merely a means of providing the bodily necessities of life. In the political economy, it is purely a wage-earning profession. According to Marx, there are four forms of alienation associated with the capitalist method of production: alienation of the worker from the products of his labor.
@@lochnessmunster1189I think some of their stuff or services can't be bought unless you've got a ton of money. Like, let's say you build a car at the factory, but you're broke and can't afford to buy it. In a capitalist society, public transportation isn't really a thing.
There is a saying "don't take it personal". I could care less if I could not afford the services or labour I was providing. It's all ego and status. If I could figure out a way to sell it make shit for wealthy people to throw their money at then that is slightly satisfactory, even humorous.
Yeah being a factory worker feels like a robot. It left you feel alienated and have no time to do other things in life other than going to work,sleep,repeat. 😓.
@@lizzyfrizzle8986 True, true. It's actually sad to see that humans are actually stuck in the system, but are taught to belive that this system is progressing or are free.
@@The80sWolf_ well the only people who really believe that are people who are materially comfortable and secure. Which is a group that is growing smaller every day.
*Capitalism is inherently exploitative, because workers are never fully compensated for their work.* If a business pays you 14 dollars per hour, that is because you produce more than that in value for the company. The rest of the value goes to the owners of the business as profits simply because they own the means of production. This fundamental problem is why inequality is on the rise in the wast majority of the world, even in countries like Norway and Denmark that have good labor laws and high taxes on the rich. To combat this problem we need to fundamentally change how the economy works. One solution that would would keep all the benefits of the current marked system is to democratize the workplace. By doing away with the owner class and making every worker a shareholder of the company they work at they would get all value that they produce. Nothing about this suggestion is theoretical. The largest worker co-opt that exist right now is the Mondragon Corporation which consists of 257 sub-companies and have over 80 thousand employees. Studies done on worker co-opts show that they are *more* productive than regular companies and offer more stable employment and have smaller difference in wages between managers and regular workers (because they vote on it). Like tuition-free college, universal healthcare and a livable minimum wage, this has already been tested in other countries and it works way better than what we have now. Why shouldn't we fight for it in the same way we fight for universal healthcare, tuition-free college and a livable minimum wage?
"Owners" are not just people who sit at a desk with their tophats as money rolls in while they do nothing. Owners are management, marketing and other important functions of a business.
@@johniacino1364 Doing managing, marketing and performing other important functions of the business is all work. It is done by workers, and those workers should be compensated for the work that they do. They should not be compensated for the work other people do, just because of ownership. I don't think that's a difficult concept to grasp, but maybe you disagree.
The history of socialism has proven that this notion of worker-control of enterprises indeed is petty-bourgeois. It does not take into account the contradiction between the the base and superstructure, the contradiction between all of the competing enterprises nor the contradiction between labour and capital. It ignores the contradiction between the base and superstructure in that you cannot carry out full cultural revolutions while you also have markets in place, which increases individualism and kills empathy between the people of the society. Even if the enterprises are worker-controlled, they don't all belong to all workers. One person may be a part of one enterprise, which is competing with other enterprises. Then, the employees of those enterprises will be alienated from the former. This way, it produces and reproduces some of the most bourgeois cultural elements such as individualism and distrust for your fellow human, as long as there are markets. This will eventually lead to a restoration of capitalism. It ignores the contradiction between the competing enterprises in that it does not see that, in competition, some enterprises succeed, and others are ruined. This was a massive problem in the prime example of market-socialism: Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia, the enterprises were in open contradiction with one another, as per market-socialism. But it is contrary to dialectics to say that contradictions merely exist, in stopped time. These contradictions in question moved back and forth, with one enterprise getting more profits than the other, and eventually, one enterprise will succeed. But to merely say this is to be dishonest. It must also be mentioned, and even emphasised, that the other enterprise is ruined. It goes bankrupt. What happens when an enterprise goes bankrupt? All of its workers become unemployed, and because the Yugoslav state was largely in the service of the Yugoslav proletariat, it attempted to prevent the destitution and suffering of proletarians that comes with unemployment. But wherefrom did it get its funds? Well, it didn't have infinite money, so it had to take loans. From the International Monetary Fund. This way, the state of Yugoslavia got into massive debts that it couldn't pay off, and with that, destitution and suffering came anyway, which was one of if the most important factors which led to its collapse. There is no way to avoid this problem without abolishing markets. It ignores the contradiction between labour and capital in that the enterprises do need profits to grow and not be outcompeted, and to make profits, the enterprise needs to appropriate surplus value from their workers. This naturally creates a contradiction between the interests of the worker and the interests of the enterprise itself, between the labour and the capital of the enterprise. As was stated above, contradictions create movement, and in this case, that movement is the decrease and increase of wages, and the respective increase and decrease of profits. A worker under this system must choose between himself or the enterprise, between short-term success and long-term success, when deciding on the wage of the enterprise's employees together with their co-workers. The only resolution of this contradiction is the end of the existence of the enterprise, either by going bankrupt due to lack of profits or becoming a volunteer service due to there being no wages. Either way, the employees lose out, and either direction the contradiction moves that is not towards an equilibrium is a loss for the employees. Here we have criticised market-socialism and the notion of worker-control of enterprises, with the help of the recognition of the following contradictions: the contradiction between the base and superstructure, the contradiction between the individual enterprises and the contradiction between labour and capital. But a criticism is useless without another suggestion! What resolves the aforementioned contradictions? The first and second are resolved by the abolition of markets. The third is a more individual contradiction, and is resolved by the end of the existence of the enterprise or the end of the existence of competition between the enterprise in question and other enterprises, i.e., the abolition of markets. These all call for the abolition of markets. Then, what would replace markets? A democratically-run centrally-planned cyber-economy! I recommend Paul Cockshott's video-lectures on it. Check them out for more information. Thanks!
Marx was genius. Many modern "economists" label him as idealistic and old guy who wrote big book. But he really changed the world. Without his ideas and revolutions there would be no rights we have today.
@Reggie Cyde Have you read any bit of Marx? I assure you that he ain't no dummie lol, anyone who can get through,understand and transcribe Hegel isn't stupid. You should probably read Wage Labor,the communist manifesto,or Critique of the Gotha program if you want to get into Marx's work because the rest are really long(First volume of Kapital is over 1000 pages and in depth)
Chong! Jojun! Balsa! Marx was a lazy, jobless bourgeois twat that mooched off his friends and never worked a hard day in his life. He was not a genius, all his ideas FAILED LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED. Stop being politically, economically, and historically illiterate. Stop watching the BBC as well, they’re nothing more than tax payer funded Regressive Leftist propaganda that is doing nothing to benefit your already incredibly small and ill informed mind.
The rights we have today came from LIBERALISM, not Marxism, you absolute fucking dunce. The idea of Natural Rights comes from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Locke is known for his statement that individuals have a right to "Life, Liberty, and Property" and his belief that the natural right to property is derived from labor. This is derived from the idea of self ownership: your body is your property, and thus you are entitled to the fruits of your labour. Locke's theory of natural rights has influenced many political documents, including the United States Declaration of Independence and the French National Constituent Assembly's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Do you know what Marx’s ideas did? They resulted in governments in the 20th Century which based themselves upon his ideas, which ended up with the deaths of over 100,000,000 people. That’s Marx’s legacy. Stop being an ignorant moron. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. Bad ideas that have never worked, DON’T WORK, and are BAD. Marx was a lazy fucking idiot with terrible ideas.
@Reggie Cyde Are you kidding? Where do you think unions came from? Workers rights? Aka things that keep you from being exploited by capitalists? Marx wrote as capitalism was beginning to flourish and take on its alienating quality in Europe, and yet Marx was able to see ahead and predict what capitalism would become. He was extraordinarily prescient. You claim such a model could never exist because of human motivation - clearly demonstrating that you have never read Marx. Our mindsets and values are influenced by capitalism because it is the dominant economic system. Primitive communism existed, as well as civilisations such as the Incan Empire which was currencyless and had equal distribution of resources - even a pension for the elderly and disabled.
I am always concerned that the Idealism of this takes Alienation as a Psychological process rather than that the Alienation is material in that it is the workers own Labour that takes over and dominates in a Social sense. Many in the old CPA put emphasis on the Mental Alienation which bought them to arguing over what they called Fordism and Taylorism , this got its height in the Social democracy of Sweden that through Volvo had a less Alienating form of Production(under Capitalism) which had workers assembling a completed car.This separation into parts and promoting one part over the other is a sneaky way of taking the revolutionary aspect of Marx's theory and diverting us to a reformist world outlook under capitalism.
I use to feel like this when i worked low wage jobs. Im doing better for myself now but i still remain sympathetic to my fellow workers who are struggling more than i am and that is why as a socialist, support the building of communism.
Evaluations aside, I find it bizarre to hear Gillian Anderson's intonation with a British accent. I keep thinking she's talking to Mulder just in a different voice.
Azen Kwed some of the poorest anericans("wage slaves") believe in "prosperity gospel." In other words, they sympathize with the rich(not themselves or the poor), and hope that one day they could be rich too. It takes good education to get did of that idea.
Elexie Munyeneh oh. ok. Yeah I know about that. The poor are convinced that, they are actually not "poor" or "proletarians" but rich-to-be, or wanna-be-millionnaires that are just currently inconvenienced.
Karl Marx got that idea from Hegel. Hegel saw is a different between classes --- whereas Karl Marx saw it as the story of economics. I agree with Marx --- History is the story of economics.
Marx wrote his famous manifest after a cholora, or typhus epidemic that killed, tens of thousands of Londoners. Modern medicine has attributed stress, poor diet, lonliness, and exhaustion to poor physical health. This no doubt contributed along with the squalor that people bunched up in charles dickins London lived in to that tragedy. Marx was a sensetive man who cared about others and he found purpose in challenging the bleak reality that he saw.
by being a cog in a machine prevents you from ever replacing your boss...you'll never be able to design your own shoes if all you do is lace 100 pairs every hour
Very Good summary. On JP's 2K-2.5K--think of examples, "For instance, in China today, workers..." Another example, would be the situation of Russian workers today, when..."
"My first impression was a very strong one," repeated the prince. "When they took me away from Russia, I remember I passed through many German towns and looked out of the windows, but I didn't trouble myself to ask questions about them. This was after a long series of fits. I would always fall into a sort of torpid condition after such a series, losing my memory almost entirely. Even though I wasn't entirely without reason during these times, I lacked the logical power of thought. This would continue for three or four days, and then I would recover myself again. I remember my melancholy was intolerable; I felt inclined to cry, sat and wondered uncomfortably. The consciousness that everything was strange weighed heavily upon me; I could understand that it was all foreign and unfamiliar. I recall waking up from this state for the first time in Basle one evening; the braying of alienation woke me up, alienation in the town market. I saw the alienation and was extremely pleased with it. From that moment on, my mind seemed to clear." "Alienation? How strange! Yet, it's not so strange. Anyone of us might fall in love with alienation! It happened in mythological times," said Madame Epanchin, casting a wrathful glance at her daughters, who had started to laugh. "Please continue, prince." "Since that evening, I've had a special fondness for alienations. I began to ask questions about them, as I had never seen one before. I immediately came to the conclusion that this must be one of the most useful animals-strong, willing, patient, and inexpensive. Thanks to this alienation, I started to appreciate the whole country I was traveling through, and my melancholy gradually faded away."
That thumbnail is not an accurate representation of Karl Marx's physique. Marx was kind of a nerd and stayed at home reading/writing a lot so he probably didn't even lift that much, there's no way at all that he would've been that buff. 0/10
I love how they put everything in here in past tense as it this isn't the present reality. You mean steal from the entrepreneur there I fixed it for you
Factory labor does not necessarily mean capitalism. In theory, you could have factory labor with pure communism or socialism. I sympathize with many of the points given here about the problems with alienation caused by the industrial revolution, but I'm not sure it can totally be attributed to capitalism.
I can see how the workers who are building Boeing airliners can feel alienation because they cannot afford to buy their own 787. How is this justice when the workers in the pencil factory can buy several any day of the week? And I speak as having known a person who worked in a real pencil factory.
The solution as Marx says is for workers to obtain democratic control of companies and corporations but more importantly for people to realize that they can start democratic businesses instead of privately owned businesses. Democratic companies can go by different names such worker cooperatives or worker self directed enterprises. An economy composed of mostly worker cooperatives would be called Economic Democracy as opposed to Capitalism. Check out the book "After Capitalism" by David Schweickart.
It's also called market socialism i.e. a bunch of socialist systems (worker cooperatives) within a system with a capitalist mode of production (products produced to be sold for profit). If one wants to try and achieve such a system without a revolution, it is required that the bourgeoisie won't intervene. That's not going so well due to ever increasing limitations in crowdfunding, as an example. Not only this, a market socialist system, even when fully established, is not efficient in preparing against an inevitable attack from the western world. Such things require planning.
No, the solution, as Marx clearly understood, is not to own your own capitalist enterprise, but to abolish wage labor, money and market relations in a social revolution.
Yes, it goes both ways. But Marxists literature seems to primarily focus on the alienation of the working class, perhaps because it is easier to see the effects of it.
You both raise valid points! Alienation does indeed affect both the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat (the workers), no doubt. Yet, Marx and most Marxists lean towards the working class (i.e., everyone who works for a living) because they face harsher impacts, primarily exploitation and dehumanisation, through capitalism. Though it's less conspicuous, the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class), despite their perceived 'control,' are often trapped in their own system, bound by capital and market demands. But let's not forget that it's this same system that sustains their privilege at the cost of the working class's hardship. Hence the emphasis.
In 19th is the time for Capitalism domination . The labour are in poor . So they accepted the owners labour law . In that law says the working hour of labour is 12 hours . The labours divided into two shift . The first shift workers start the work at morning and leave to home in night . The second shift workers start the work at night and leave to home at early morning . Only for low income . So the labours have few hours to live their life . The Karl Marx breaks the chain rules .
There's a lot of presupposed negative value judgments made in describing the workers lives. This video is conjecture dressed up as scientific analysis.
I'm not human myself. That's why I dehumanize myself everyday. Eventually, I'm gonna do other things to myself to the point when I die, I'll be donated to science instead of having to be buried and a funeral.
This is hilarious. So boring factory work in the 27 Socialist countries like the USSR or the CCP wasn't alienating? It was. Marxists love to speak from theory but rarely investigate their many and continuous failures of Socialism in action. They real question is, "WHY did Socialist countries fail to prevent alienation with their boring jobs?" I've never read that Soviet steel factor workers talking about fulfilling their potential or the meaningfulness of boring work in unpleasant conditions. I never will, unless I see some ridiculous glowing propaganda film. This is one of my big problems with Marxists/Socialists: Dissimulation (lying).
@@kevinkeating4984 Yet you Socialists have no produced no alternative. I keep hearing that Real socialism has never been tried. However, why is no one 'trying it'? We have 172 years of no 'real socialism' after the Communist Manifesto was written. When do Socialists give up? That is a long period of failure to make Marxism even work. NO classless society, NO stateless Communism. I never to expect to see either of these forms of "Eden".
They're not "putting things in past tense." They're explaining how we got to this point. Karl Marx wrote over 100 years ago. So they're describing things during his lifetime. Basically Marx called all of this B.S. over 100 years ago....
Very strange how this video always talks in the past tense. News flash, alienation is still around in full-force in capitalism today! It is a part *of* capitalism.
^^^^^^^
totally agreed,
alienation and exploitation are parts of capitalism tighten together like flesh and bones and impossible to separate from each other, only its forms are changing from time to time due to new circumstances
+Cipi SixZeroFour . I'm not a Marxist, but you characterizations here are clearly untrue for both capitalism and Marxism. You don't just work "if you want to" under capitalism. Necessity compels working for an income, and that necessity is backed up by the rules of the system, not simply natural inevitability. All systems are likely to require people working in jobs they don't love to death, one way or another. Most people under capitalism hate their jobs. This is hardly "choosing the job you want", except in the most minimal sense of not being forced to work as job at the end of a gun, which is a shoddy conception of freedom. There are many other forms of structural compulsion within capitalism that prevent people doing to jobs they want to do, and compel them to stay in jobs they hate. Also, the idea that people must work particular jobs at the direction of the state, without options, is not endemic to Marxism. Even in the Communist Manifesto, Marx says the exact opposite. The authoritarianism of 20th century officially socialist states were hardly representative of the entire tradition of Marxist thought, and some of their largest detractors have been Marxists.
Justin Mueller I have already lived under Communism. Capitalism beats Communism every time. No contest. The shittiest jobs are under Communism not under Capitalism. Under Capitalism you have what job you want, under Communism your job is what the Communist party wants for you. Only in Capitalism you get to choose since only unde Capitalism you're free. And under Capitalism work is not mandatory since you have the welfare state or you can inherit your parents business.
Cipi SixZeroFour Where did you live in?
I love how they put everything in here in past tense as if this isn't the present reality. Because that would mean admitting that this current world is a hellscape and that powerful people need to be put in their place. But god forbid BBC, an established and very wealthy organization supported by both taxpayers and corporations, would want to do that.
100% spot on
I'm starting to lose trust in the bbc, what do I watch instead?
@@harrymason8475 Nothing. Every media is the same.
@@harrymason8475 any and all but try understand why differing news sources may lie to you.
There's no such thing as a 100% trustworthy source
This only goes over Marx and his observations during his lifetime, whether this operates similarly today doesn't necessarily matter in an very brief historical presentation. Everything doesn't have to be Doomer propaganda ;)
For an another look at Marxism, capitalism, consumerist society and it's progression I recommend The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord. It was written in 1967 but it still has applicable concepts today.
now to put this in a 2000-2250 word paper..
J P give case studies and examples, those take up a hell lot of word count
Same😂
OMG who doing this now???? I need examples though ☺ asap
OMG who doing this now???? I need examples though ☺ asap
@@capitalistsocietybots9976 Here
concise and simple presentation of Marx's ideas but christ. why make it seem as though this is all something of the past? as though this is not something that exists in manners just as stark today?
For billions of people today, things are WORSE!
Gareth Ham Nothing is WORSE today than it was 100 years ago, Gareth. NOTHING.
I do realise the population of today is much higher, but even still, do you realise just how many people are dying every year due to 'structural violence'?
***** Firstly, quoting Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
I would love to see some statistical evidence to back up your claim that less people are starving today than ever before in history.
Finally, you clearly don't understand the concept of Structural Violence. The actions of individuals and groups against others in this world may be a symptom of structural violence, but that is not what structural violence is, in and of itself.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence
***** So you agree with the classification of abject poverty those statistics are based off?
Great examination of capitalism. Tying this to modern society is important. Alienation is everywhere today!
I appreciate the swole Marx illustration.
it is good
Too bad he was weak and covered in boils and died never having worked a day in his life😎
@@JaMeshuggah He's done significant work for sociology by writing. When will you contribute to future thinkers for years to come
@@fairy5668 when I get finish my bullet collection
@@JaMeshuggah You mean like murder?
Modern reality is so absurd that something I pinch myself as though hoping to wake up from a bad dream..
What era would you like to trade with?
Peter Enns Past stays in the past and all we can hope for is a better future as that’s what tomorrow should mean for everyone and this dystopian and cynical way of living it’s not it
@@VinsLeMans Today is dystopian and cynical then? When was better? Where was better?
@@crkcrk702 this is social-darwinism, from the looks of it.
@@burkean Yes, all human history up to the industrial era.
I like how Gillian Anderson narrates this video 👍🏼❤️ Here is the quote from Marx on alienation, from Das Kapital: "The fact that labour is external to the worker, i e, it does not belong to his essential being; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He is at home when he is not working, and when he is working he is not at home. His labour is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it's forced labour. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it".
Nice! Thanks Comrade!
Yes, the eloquent perfection of equity always attracts crapitalism and imperialism's apologists and lackeys.
More true today than ever
Its not from das kapital, it's from the 1844 manuscripts, I read it in german but im pretty Sure that its from there. The part when he talked about alientation Was just perfect
Today we are in alienation pro max, but the presenter spoke like it was back when Christ was alive.
"A spectre is haunting Europe..."
*X-Files theme plays*
+7NatioN Marx's Eurocentrism on display.. you're taking that from a Marxist btw
@@MasonDeanSteinerRedScare -- You're the flukeman, aren't you?
Unfortunately this video dresses up Marx's Theory of Alienation, not as a general theory applicable even to modern Capitalism today, but as some specific and so simple as to apply to only 19th Century Manufacturing...
I also don't think anyone really cares for the pot shots at Brand.
Ulezim do you think factory manufacturing isn't still happening today? where you do think all these mass produced goods are coming from? this is a problem if consumers don't want to acknowledge/aren't aware where their clothes and shoes and whatever else are coming from
maws francis I'm not sure that's what Ulezim meant. It is clearly a simple way to explain what happened then and it definitely, to me at least, shows up the problems with countries such as China now days.
Alienation is defined as alienated labor. In Karl Marx's Manuscripts, alienated labor refers to forced and involuntary labor in which the worker finds no purpose, no joy or happiness, no fulfillment of necessities, no independence or power, no mental or physical development. A person in this situation feels lonely, embarrassed, worthless, and unimportant. It is someone else's operation, it is not random, and it is merely a means of providing the bodily necessities of life. In the political economy, it is purely a wage-earning profession. According to Marx, there are four forms of alienation associated with the capitalist method of production: alienation of the worker from the products of his labor.
But how is a worker (employers can be workers too) actually 'alienated' from the products of their labor?
@@lochnessmunster1189I think some of their stuff or services can't be bought unless you've got a ton of money. Like, let's say you build a car at the factory, but you're broke and can't afford to buy it. In a capitalist society, public transportation isn't really a thing.
@@Kuonlin It is in many countries, the lack of public transportation is not an aspect of capitalist society.
There is a saying "don't take it personal". I could care less if I could not afford the services or labour I was providing. It's all ego and status. If I could figure out a way to sell it make shit for wealthy people to throw their money at then that is slightly satisfactory, even humorous.
Please caption your videos, BBC! It helps us all to retain the information better, in addition to being compliant for hard of hearing users.
Yeah being a factory worker feels like a robot. It left you feel alienated and have no time to do other things in life other than going to work,sleep,repeat. 😓.
And now we have created a alienated unemployed working class.
It’s been like that since the beginning of capitalism
@@lizzyfrizzle8986
True, true. It's actually sad to see that humans are actually stuck in the system, but are taught to belive that this system is progressing or are free.
@@The80sWolf_ well the only people who really believe that are people who are materially comfortable and secure. Which is a group that is growing smaller every day.
Better than state selected labor and bread lines.
@@Drako9823 So like whats happening in the western countries lol. Cope harder bro.
*Capitalism is inherently exploitative, because workers are never fully compensated for their work.* If a business pays you 14 dollars per hour, that is because you produce more than that in value for the company. The rest of the value goes to the owners of the business as profits simply because they own the means of production. This fundamental problem is why inequality is on the rise in the wast majority of the world, even in countries like Norway and Denmark that have good labor laws and high taxes on the rich.
To combat this problem we need to fundamentally change how the economy works. One solution that would would keep all the benefits of the current marked system is to democratize the workplace. By doing away with the owner class and making every worker a shareholder of the company they work at they would get all value that they produce.
Nothing about this suggestion is theoretical. The largest worker co-opt that exist right now is the Mondragon Corporation which consists of 257 sub-companies and have over 80 thousand employees. Studies done on worker co-opts show that they are *more* productive than regular companies and offer more stable employment and have smaller difference in wages between managers and regular workers (because they vote on it). Like tuition-free college, universal healthcare and a livable minimum wage, this has already been tested in other countries and it works way better than what we have now. Why shouldn't we fight for it in the same way we fight for universal healthcare, tuition-free college and a livable minimum wage?
"Owners" are not just people who sit at a desk with their tophats as money rolls in while they do nothing. Owners are management, marketing and other important functions of a business.
@@johniacino1364 Doing managing, marketing and performing other important functions of the business is all work. It is done by workers, and those workers should be compensated for the work that they do. They should not be compensated for the work other people do, just because of ownership.
I don't think that's a difficult concept to grasp, but maybe you disagree.
The history of socialism has proven that this notion of worker-control of enterprises indeed is petty-bourgeois. It does not take into account the contradiction between the the base and superstructure, the contradiction between all of the competing enterprises nor the contradiction between labour and capital.
It ignores the contradiction between the base and superstructure in that you cannot carry out full cultural revolutions while you also have markets in place, which increases individualism and kills empathy between the people of the society. Even if the enterprises are worker-controlled, they don't all belong to all workers. One person may be a part of one enterprise, which is competing with other enterprises. Then, the employees of those enterprises will be alienated from the former. This way, it produces and reproduces some of the most bourgeois cultural elements such as individualism and distrust for your fellow human, as long as there are markets. This will eventually lead to a restoration of capitalism.
It ignores the contradiction between the competing enterprises in that it does not see that, in competition, some enterprises succeed, and others are ruined. This was a massive problem in the prime example of market-socialism: Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia, the enterprises were in open contradiction with one another, as per market-socialism. But it is contrary to dialectics to say that contradictions merely exist, in stopped time. These contradictions in question moved back and forth, with one enterprise getting more profits than the other, and eventually, one enterprise will succeed. But to merely say this is to be dishonest. It must also be mentioned, and even emphasised, that the other enterprise is ruined. It goes bankrupt. What happens when an enterprise goes bankrupt? All of its workers become unemployed, and because the Yugoslav state was largely in the service of the Yugoslav proletariat, it attempted to prevent the destitution and suffering of proletarians that comes with unemployment. But wherefrom did it get its funds? Well, it didn't have infinite money, so it had to take loans. From the International Monetary Fund. This way, the state of Yugoslavia got into massive debts that it couldn't pay off, and with that, destitution and suffering came anyway, which was one of if the most important factors which led to its collapse. There is no way to avoid this problem without abolishing markets.
It ignores the contradiction between labour and capital in that the enterprises do need profits to grow and not be outcompeted, and to make profits, the enterprise needs to appropriate surplus value from their workers. This naturally creates a contradiction between the interests of the worker and the interests of the enterprise itself, between the labour and the capital of the enterprise. As was stated above, contradictions create movement, and in this case, that movement is the decrease and increase of wages, and the respective increase and decrease of profits. A worker under this system must choose between himself or the enterprise, between short-term success and long-term success, when deciding on the wage of the enterprise's employees together with their co-workers. The only resolution of this contradiction is the end of the existence of the enterprise, either by going bankrupt due to lack of profits or becoming a volunteer service due to there being no wages. Either way, the employees lose out, and either direction the contradiction moves that is not towards an equilibrium is a loss for the employees.
Here we have criticised market-socialism and the notion of worker-control of enterprises, with the help of the recognition of the following contradictions: the contradiction between the base and superstructure, the contradiction between the individual enterprises and the contradiction between labour and capital.
But a criticism is useless without another suggestion! What resolves the aforementioned contradictions? The first and second are resolved by the abolition of markets. The third is a more individual contradiction, and is resolved by the end of the existence of the enterprise or the end of the existence of competition between the enterprise in question and other enterprises, i.e., the abolition of markets.
These all call for the abolition of markets. Then, what would replace markets? A democratically-run centrally-planned cyber-economy! I recommend Paul Cockshott's video-lectures on it. Check them out for more information. Thanks!
You are implying that the owner who has contributed with the start up of the business, has no contribution to the final product, which is incorrect
@@cv4809 No, I'm not. I think the owner should be compensate for his work. But not for his ownership.
Wow! Respect to BBC!
Marx was genius. Many modern "economists" label him as idealistic and old guy who wrote big book.
But he really changed the world. Without his ideas and revolutions there would be no rights we have today.
@Reggie Cyde
Have you read any bit of Marx?
I assure you that he ain't no dummie lol, anyone who can get through,understand and transcribe Hegel isn't stupid.
You should probably read Wage Labor,the communist manifesto,or Critique of the Gotha program if you want to get into Marx's work because the rest are really long(First volume of Kapital is over 1000 pages and in depth)
@Reggie Cyde lmao for you
Chong! Jojun! Balsa! Marx was a lazy, jobless bourgeois twat that mooched off his friends and never worked a hard day in his life. He was not a genius, all his ideas FAILED LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED. Stop being politically, economically, and historically illiterate. Stop watching the BBC as well, they’re nothing more than tax payer funded Regressive Leftist propaganda that is doing nothing to benefit your already incredibly small and ill informed mind.
The rights we have today came from LIBERALISM, not Marxism, you absolute fucking dunce. The idea of Natural Rights comes from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Locke is known for his statement that individuals have a right to "Life, Liberty, and Property" and his belief that the natural right to property is derived from labor. This is derived from the idea of self ownership: your body is your property, and thus you are entitled to the fruits of your labour. Locke's theory of natural rights has influenced many political documents, including the United States Declaration of Independence and the French National Constituent Assembly's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Do you know what Marx’s ideas did? They resulted in governments in the 20th Century which based themselves upon his ideas, which ended up with the deaths of over 100,000,000 people. That’s Marx’s legacy. Stop being an ignorant moron. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. Bad ideas that have never worked, DON’T WORK, and are BAD. Marx was a lazy fucking idiot with terrible ideas.
@Reggie Cyde Are you kidding? Where do you think unions came from? Workers rights? Aka things that keep you from being exploited by capitalists? Marx wrote as capitalism was beginning to flourish and take on its alienating quality in Europe, and yet Marx was able to see ahead and predict what capitalism would become. He was extraordinarily prescient. You claim such a model could never exist because of human motivation - clearly demonstrating that you have never read Marx. Our mindsets and values are influenced by capitalism because it is the dominant economic system. Primitive communism existed, as well as civilisations such as the Incan Empire which was currencyless and had equal distribution of resources - even a pension for the elderly and disabled.
Thank you! This really helped me write a paper for my political science class.
Apparently the youtube link for this video is marked as spam on Facebook. I can't share it there.
amazing, short and precise
Still relevant in 2019.
Jesus christ its only gotten worse after covid
Facebook won't let me share this video. What the hell? Does it let anyone else share it?
Russell Brand popping up at the end was a bit creepy. Better watch your back, Karl!
nice refresher on a friday morning
I am always concerned that the Idealism of this takes Alienation as a Psychological process rather than that the Alienation is material in that it is the workers own Labour that takes over and dominates in a Social sense. Many in the old CPA put emphasis on the Mental Alienation which bought them to arguing over what they called Fordism and Taylorism , this got its height in the Social democracy of Sweden that through Volvo had a less Alienating form of Production(under Capitalism) which had workers assembling a completed car.This separation into parts and promoting one part over the other is a sneaky way of taking the revolutionary aspect of Marx's theory and diverting us to a reformist world outlook under capitalism.
I use to feel like this when i worked low wage jobs. Im doing better for myself now but i still remain sympathetic to my fellow workers who are struggling more than i am and that is why as a socialist, support the building of communism.
But are you 'alienated'?
Does anyone know where I can find the illustrations and if they are available in a pdf format to download them?
Good to see Russell at the end there.
Evaluations aside, I find it bizarre to hear Gillian Anderson's intonation with a British accent. I keep thinking she's talking to Mulder just in a different voice.
+Szaam I think she's been living and working in the UK for quite a while, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, it is a little odd but sounds nice.
And now she plays Thatcher 🙃
queria ver muito este video traduzido em português, vou fazer um trabalho sobre Karl Marx na faculdade e gostaria desse vídeo para passá-lo em sala!
no one understands you
Portugal has one of the highest rates of inequity-they need more than this!
Conseguiu? Eu tava seriamente pensando em fazer uma dublagem do material (O risco é tomar processo de direito de copia 🤡)
Was the chain breaking a reference to Zampano from La Strada?
Little known fact: Karl Marx had a sister who invented the starter pistol. Her name was Anya.
anya marx get set goooooo
Why did the narrator keep speaking in past tense?
What did they do to agent Scully?
why, oh why most people (wage slaves) still don't fucking get that ?
+Azen Kwed Part of alienation is conditioning people to act against their best interests.
Prosperity Gospel. 😂
Elexie Munyeneh what do you mean ?
Azen Kwed some of the poorest anericans("wage slaves") believe in "prosperity gospel." In other words, they sympathize with the rich(not themselves or the poor), and hope that one day they could be rich too. It takes good education to get did of that idea.
Elexie Munyeneh oh. ok. Yeah I know about that. The poor are convinced that, they are actually not "poor" or "proletarians" but rich-to-be, or wanna-be-millionnaires that are just currently inconvenienced.
Now we just call it burnout and blame the workers for being weak/poor boundaries...
I saw the movie Alienation several times but they never mention Marx nor he's acting a part in it.
can anyone please tell me what she clearly said on 0.09 "species essence..."
+Waznaa Bhagalee "It [work] fulfils our species essence" as he [Marx] put it.
Hey thanks dearie! 😊
Why subtitle is not able?
"they made stuff they couldn't afford to buy"
if i work at a private equity firm - am I meant to acquire companies?
Nice
Nice and concise!
i want that image in my lockscreen!
He missed the legend, if possible in Portuguese too!
Karl Marx got that idea from Hegel. Hegel saw is a different between classes --- whereas Karl Marx saw it as the story of economics. I agree with Marx --- History is the story of economics.
I think you got them switched
still going on
Here for Gillian shes awesome
this is literally me rn lol
Me when
When
Marx wrote his famous manifest after a cholora, or typhus epidemic that killed, tens of thousands of Londoners. Modern medicine has attributed stress, poor diet, lonliness, and exhaustion to poor physical health. This no doubt contributed along with the squalor that people bunched up in charles dickins London lived in to that tragedy. Marx was a sensetive man who cared about others and he found purpose in challenging the bleak reality that he saw.
Thanks bro test tmrw
Now I want this poster🤩
Thanks
by being a cog in a machine prevents you from ever replacing your boss...you'll never be able to design your own shoes if all you do is lace 100 pairs every hour
Excellent
Very Good summary. On JP's 2K-2.5K--think of examples, "For instance, in China today, workers..." Another example, would be the situation of Russian workers today, when..."
Gillian Anderson is British?
Nice work!
"My first impression was a very strong one," repeated the prince. "When they took me away from Russia, I remember I passed through many German towns and looked out of the windows, but I didn't trouble myself to ask questions about them. This was after a long series of fits. I would always fall into a sort of torpid condition after such a series, losing my memory almost entirely. Even though I wasn't entirely without reason during these times, I lacked the logical power of thought. This would continue for three or four days, and then I would recover myself again. I remember my melancholy was intolerable; I felt inclined to cry, sat and wondered uncomfortably. The consciousness that everything was strange weighed heavily upon me; I could understand that it was all foreign and unfamiliar. I recall waking up from this state for the first time in Basle one evening; the braying of alienation woke me up, alienation in the town market. I saw the alienation and was extremely pleased with it. From that moment on, my mind seemed to clear."
"Alienation? How strange! Yet, it's not so strange. Anyone of us might fall in love with alienation! It happened in mythological times," said Madame Epanchin, casting a wrathful glance at her daughters, who had started to laugh. "Please continue, prince."
"Since that evening, I've had a special fondness for alienations. I began to ask questions about them, as I had never seen one before. I immediately came to the conclusion that this must be one of the most useful animals-strong, willing, patient, and inexpensive. Thanks to this alienation, I started to appreciate the whole country I was traveling through, and my melancholy gradually faded away."
That thumbnail is not an accurate representation of Karl Marx's physique. Marx was kind of a nerd and stayed at home reading/writing a lot so he probably didn't even lift that much, there's no way at all that he would've been that buff. 0/10
Amazing, thank you!
lol at having Russel Brand wearing a Che t shirt at the end...
Russell*
Holy shit, nothing's changed!
2023 & this is more relevant than ever.
In capitalism the average worker earns enough to live to work another day.
Thank you for the explanation
Excellent. Very succinct
I love how they put everything in here in past tense as it this isn't the present reality. You mean steal from the entrepreneur there I fixed it for you
Factory labor does not necessarily mean capitalism. In theory, you could have factory labor with pure communism or socialism. I sympathize with many of the points given here about the problems with alienation caused by the industrial revolution, but I'm not sure it can totally be attributed to capitalism.
gillian anderson?
I can see how the workers who are building Boeing airliners can feel alienation because they cannot afford to buy their own 787. How is this justice when the workers in the pencil factory can buy several any day of the week? And I speak as having known a person who worked in a real pencil factory.
The solution as Marx says is for workers to obtain democratic control of companies and corporations but more importantly for people to realize that they can start democratic businesses instead of privately owned businesses. Democratic companies can go by different names such worker cooperatives or worker self directed enterprises. An economy composed of mostly worker cooperatives would be called Economic Democracy as opposed to Capitalism. Check out the book "After Capitalism" by David Schweickart.
It's also called market socialism i.e. a bunch of socialist systems (worker cooperatives) within a system with a capitalist mode of production (products produced to be sold for profit).
If one wants to try and achieve such a system without a revolution, it is required that the bourgeoisie won't intervene. That's not going so well due to ever increasing limitations in crowdfunding, as an example.
Not only this, a market socialist system, even when fully established, is not efficient in preparing against an inevitable attack from the western world. Such things require planning.
No, the solution, as Marx clearly understood, is not to own your own capitalist enterprise, but to abolish wage labor, money and market relations in a social revolution.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people still lend credence to the ideas of this obviously insane, long deceased German.
Thank you sooo much!!
thank you!
Misses the point that alienation is also felt by the bourgeoisie.
Yes, it goes both ways. But Marxists literature seems to primarily focus on the alienation of the working class, perhaps because it is easier to see the effects of it.
You both raise valid points! Alienation does indeed affect both the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat (the workers), no doubt. Yet, Marx and most Marxists lean towards the working class (i.e., everyone who works for a living) because they face harsher impacts, primarily exploitation and dehumanisation, through capitalism. Though it's less conspicuous, the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class), despite their perceived 'control,' are often trapped in their own system, bound by capital and market demands. But let's not forget that it's this same system that sustains their privilege at the cost of the working class's hardship. Hence the emphasis.
Here after Joker?
Great
Dislikes tell me that this channel doesn't have an American audience
If workers in the world United, there would be world peace.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That's an Utopia, impossible to make it happen.
In 19th is the time for Capitalism domination . The labour are in poor . So they accepted the owners labour law . In that law says the working hour of labour is 12 hours . The labours divided into two shift . The first shift workers start the work at morning and leave to home in night . The second shift workers start the work at night and leave to home at early morning . Only for low income . So the labours have few hours to live their life . The Karl Marx breaks the chain rules .
It's why people long for it to be Friday and get wasted
Forms may be different but it is everywhere..!
I am alienated too.
Gillian Anderson does this and then plays a Thatcher.
Thus Ludlow Massacre happened and now Americans get Saturdays and Sundays off maxed at 40 hours a week.
There's a lot of presupposed negative value judgments made in describing the workers lives. This video is conjecture dressed up as scientific analysis.
***** That guy got fuckin roasted. Good one m8.
This video is presenting an idea from a dead white dude... nothing about it was 'dressed up as scientific analysis.' Troll much?
Louis Cyfear once the analysis is logical it is scientific
Mohammed fawzi Yes but the it's only a theory.
And its logical on the other hand your comment which holds no argument
A quiet unexpected theory from a materialistic philosopher. "Aliya Begovic"
I'm not human myself. That's why I dehumanize myself everyday. Eventually, I'm gonna do other things to myself to the point when I die, I'll be donated to science instead of having to be buried and a funeral.
TJ Miller cameo at 1:44
great
"You have nothing to lose but your chains."
Really interesting!
Russell Brand?
Work good, labor bad, paying those who choose not to pay for themselves best
Puts folders up during test because those who don't study copy answers. Becomes marxist
Sounds like a plan.
this broke it down
It's just great!
This is hilarious. So boring factory work in the 27 Socialist countries like the USSR or the CCP wasn't alienating? It was. Marxists love to speak from theory but rarely investigate their many and continuous failures of Socialism in action.
They real question is, "WHY did Socialist countries fail to prevent alienation with their boring jobs?" I've never read that Soviet steel factor workers talking about fulfilling their potential or the meaningfulness of boring work in unpleasant conditions. I never will, unless I see some ridiculous glowing propaganda film.
This is one of my big problems with Marxists/Socialists: Dissimulation (lying).
That was state capitalism, smart feller.
@@kevinkeating4984 Yet you Socialists have no produced no alternative. I keep hearing that Real socialism has never been tried. However, why is no one 'trying it'? We have 172 years of no 'real socialism' after the Communist Manifesto was written. When do Socialists give up? That is a long period of failure to make Marxism even work. NO classless society, NO stateless Communism. I never to expect to see either of these forms of "Eden".
It was real socialism
good shit
They're not "putting things in past tense." They're explaining how we got to this point. Karl Marx wrote over 100 years ago. So they're describing things during his lifetime. Basically Marx called all of this B.S. over 100 years ago....