+The Oba Of Benin It's not an actual argument, it's a thought-terminating cliche. It's simply an appeal to the status quo and an inability to accept that the current way of doing things is not the best, or even the only, way of doing things. The same accusation is levelled as Right-Libertarians as well and they're equally sick of it.
+forfrosne 1% of the global population own 50% of the wealth, poverty is rampant, and capitalist economists are always fucking wrong. This is funny because what it implies is that capitalism doesn't work in practice OR in theory!
@Allie Neesan Jesus christ lol nobody said we supported marxism, we just think the video was a good explanation of it. I don't know why you went nuclear for such a mundane comment thread.
The first time I actually went outta my way to find some educational information, and this video didn't disappoint. Some of you people who commented only further helped me. Wow.....
this video sucked quite a bit though, i don't recommend looking at RUclips (unless you're specifically looking for lectures from marxist theorists, like badiou or heinrich) if you want to learn about these things some introductory texts i _would_ recommend are the fundamentals for a marxist orientation and the original content of the communist program by amadeo bordiga and socialism utopian and scientific by engels. the first two are shorter, the latter is like a small book but pretty easy to read
Jay Blake I haven’t listened to the podcast mainly because I got bored. But I have watched about 2 hours of anarcho communist short videos and I’m still not convinced. I debunked the surplus value and why we need investors. You’ve actually made me less communist than I all ready was 😂😂
Jay Blake Still hasn’t worked. Every single problem he talks about and other channels you linked I could think of something to counter that. I’m a Conservative Social Democratic so I agree with helping people get through life things like that. But what I’ve never heard from communists is how it’s going to be better than capitalism. It’s not and never will be because you won’t have the element of competing therefore you won’t innervate and create wealth. Believe me it’s easy to become a millionaire and an investor. If you invested £4,000 a year for 40 years in index funds at an average return of 7% (the average return on the stock market if 10%) you’ll be a millionaire. So it’s not impossible you have to sacrifice you present for your future if you want to make it.
@@SteveVon7 Did you inherit being an asshole from your parents or did they actively teach you to be one? Just asking for my Nature vs Nurture assignment.
Middle Class, not middle income percentile. Classes included Aristocracy in most european countries. These aristocrats were, however, nominally poorer than industrial stakeholders. Lenin hated the middle class even more than he did the aristocrats, since he viewed them as entitled proletarians, and he knew how easily the nobility could be killed off in a revolution. If you ask me, all communists are envious, resentment driven blood hungry moralists. Not even worthy of being called monsters. Just slime.
I'm brand new to this channel and can I say, it's brilliant! The information is very concise and to the point and presented in a easy to understand and interesting way. And tackling the issues in a factual unbiased approach. You've earned a subscriber my friend. :)
The vast majority of Marx's work is critiquing capitalism. I don't think he spends nearly as much time talking about what a post-capitalist society might look like.
WRONG: The Bourgeoisie is not the middle class, they are the ruling class. The proletariat takes power to build socialism, communism emerges far ahead from that point.
+dallaskenn Wrong, the ruling class is the rulers. Not the factory owners, or at least that was the idea at the time. What you are confusing is the fact that now the owners have the power o influence the ruling class, and in some ways have risen above the ruling class.
It's not wrong, the bourgeoisie are in fact the middle class everyone below them is poor and poorer on the edge between survival and death. The wealth of the bourgeoisie isn't even comparable to that of the elite. The bourgeoisie is only someone that is a bit further from "the edge" and has a breath and a nice meal to spare, they might seem wealthy to you and they might feel rich comparing themselves to those who stand closer to the edge, but they know that they are not wealthy and that they are only better of than most.
The middle class in the contemporary sense is normally defined through income brackets. Contrast this with the bourgeoisie, which Marx and Engels defined qualitatively by their relations to the means of production.
Interesting fact; the first memory I have involving communism was when I was learning about it in middle school. I remember the definition being something along the lines of "everyone owns a piece of everything." And I couldn't help but ask, how was this a bad thing?
Me too... It's good from a empathetic pov... But it hinders the progress or further break throughs in certain fields... Because everyone has a stake in it, and everyones running in all directions... They cannot come to a one solid conclusion, which results in a stalemate...
@@realdaybreaker8013 not only is this untrue, but its been proven. During world war 1 russia was a shithole. the soviet union, when it became socialist, made the same amount of progress the british have made in 500 years, in 60. In fact the collapse of the soviet union had very little to do with socialism
Our nervous system is wired in a way that we get rewarded for our personal achievements. We hunt food, a bit of serotonin, we find a mate, a little extra more. The same is applicable to a capitalist society, you aspire towards something, you work towards it and make sacrifices and you achieve it and feel rewarded because of serotonin. A society of communism/marxism would eventually result in allocated jobs being a necessity, why would people work high labour jobs for zero reward? You no longer have the ability to be what you want, you are no longer rewarded for your contributions to society, you just go to work, get your allocated money, eat your food and survive. That's not life, that's existing.
So many inaccuracies in this video: The conflict is against The Working Class and the Bourgeois, The Ruling Class. 'Middle-Class' is NOT a Marxian term, the Bourgeois are NOT Middle-Class, they're the the most class conscious layer of the ruling class as the Proletariat is to the Working Class.
Marx formulated his ideas in the context of 19th C. British society, which is traditionally obsessed over class, especially in relation to nobility versus commoners. However, the 19th C. British middle class was a large, expanding, and increasingly wealthy population - which Marx identified as the "bourgeois" class, which owned capital (especially the means of production). This was in contrast to the "proletariat" class, i.e. the worker class which owned no capital. As a Jewish German-born foreigner living in British society, Marx was naturally sensitive and highly conscious that he was an outsider.
There are not only inaccuracies, there are lies and distortions to capture the ignorant. The Marxist leadership has successfully extended control over the education system through its Marxist agents in the political and education system in order to promote Marxism as a benevolent social solution to human problems; "Hope and Change."
There is a distinction between the Ruling class (Bourgeoisie) & Middle class (Petite bourgeoisie-shopkeepers, butchers, etc.), but Marx basically lumped them in together. It’s easier to pit two groups directly against each other!
I found over the last 4 years people have been throwing around the word Marxism slot without actually knowing what they are talking about. If an unarmed black person is shot and killed by the police, and people protest it, they are apparently Marxists.
It's not a few people, it's tens of millions of business owners, like the owner of this channel. I like how a 19th century philosophy that would not work in that time either, is some how applicable to today's world.
The owner of this channel is not a business owner. Your understanding of the world is so clearly deficient to the point that you don’t deserve to have an opinion on the matter.
@@Oreo41212 Not sure how you can be so oblivious. Capitalism is what provides ever modern convenience in your life which you clearly have no gratitude for. Seems you wish to return to serfdom and subsistence farming, I highly doubt you would survive the labor.
@@Jonathan-ds6yj Lol capitalism is also responsible for the massive wealth gap, the homelessness crisis, exploitation and abuse of the middle east for oil, unaffordable health care, corporate lobbying to prevent any positive change, etc. Serfdom has overworked and underpaid people working fields while the kings took all the profit. Now it's just overworked and underpaid people working in factories while rich people take all the profit. Literally no one is saying capitalism is worse than the systems we had before, even Marx recognized that capitilism was a necessary step to a better society, but it's still not a good society and it's had pretty much the same issues since the industrial revolution. Maybe you'd actually looked around at the world around you a little bit, and saw where your iPhone came from, or maybe even read any of Marx's work, or listened to anything that isn't paid for by corporate oil tycoons you'd understand this. "Not sure how you could be so oblivious" lol.
@@Oreo41212 If you have a better solution than capitalism let's hear it. In the meantime it has lifted billions of people out of poverty, all I hear from that is "the wage gap" well let's examine that. Since food collection first began there has been a "wage gap" called successful hunters and unsuccessful. Various reasons for success or failure in hunting anything, but there is much to be done where one can tip the scales of success in a hunters favor. Some are always going to be better than others at any given thing, and further than that some are going to dedicate their life's work to a given trade or craft making them experts able to produce something far beyond what anyone not specialized could hope to produce. How would you propose you "overcome" this gap? Unless of course you thing digging a ditch is the same mental aptitude as understanding quantum physics for example?
Pretty sure there are some major flaws in this. First off, people were not free under feudalism, and they had to pay the land owner to use the land, and were basically subservient to them. Also, child labour existed before the industrial revolution under feudalism too. It's romanticism to claim that feudalism was somehow a free and glorious time for workers.. Conditions were awful, as was working in the factories was awful. I'm not sure of the relevance of child labour at all tbh... this video skipped out some major tenets of Marxism too, like the concept of alienation, and the idea of stages of capitalism. The bourgeoise is the upper class, and not the middle class. Marx, as far as I know, had little to say about the middle classes, as they by and large hadn't developed as a significant enough group at that time so the concept was alien. They came later on across Europe, and with that the growth of things like academia, liberalism and science. This is a reminder that RUclips is a very poor replacement for real education. If you want to understand complex philosophies like Marxism you have to suck it up, read the texts themselves and the academic literature around it. It takes time... but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Mark Daniels Yeah I agree with you on some factual points. It also seems to me Marx was right about the problem, but not the solution - it is unrealistic, and treats workers as if they don't have the same sins as the oppressors (the oppressed (real or imagined), becoming the new oppressors). Here is the reply I gave to someone else, but it also fits here, why, as far as I can tell so far, Marx was wrong about the solution: If it is basic to Marxism that we SHOULD all be in a power struggle to dominate other people (which then ends up acting in rage toward them, which is destructive, not creative), THEN I consider that a very unloving and destructive attitude which is against real progress (meaning progress in the love of oneself and others as individuals, & what love is & isn't is about causing human & creature flourishing). Essential to this, that I stand for and Marixsm appears to be against, is the great importance of CONSISTENT principles, rather than double standards between myself & my adversary. The dominantion/submission struggle doesn't seem compatible with that to me. And it also means reinforces that we don't learn to become trustworthy. I am not worthy of your trust if I want to dominate, control or punish you, am I? Neither are you, correct? That is why I believe Marx is mistaken about how real progress & human flourishing is caused. I also have never heard from a Marxist that had consistent ethics, and why would they, if the solution is to gain power & "dominate the real or imagined oppressors" (yet somehow not become the new oppressors, despite one's own sinful condition but good design?). I am a Centre Left liberal, and the SJW's whom I see as unethical, dangerous and untrustworthy, appear to be influenced Marx's way of seeing society & using it as an excuse to treat others badly (because in that power game, everyone is treated as either oppressed, Ally or an oppressor). If you know something I don't, and can have a respectful conversation, then under those conditions, your welcome to give me this information.
As an example, I believe that one of the greatest problems in the world, is false beliefs about money, emotional injuries about money, which creates fears about money, which creates scarcity and poverty. I am a supporter of both MMT and www.positivemoney.org Here is a brief description of MMT understanding of what money is: ruclips.net/video/TDL4c8fMODk/видео.html Here is a longer one (but not necessary if your much interested in this): ruclips.net/video/mCOVldiGeQY/видео.html The Marxist perspective would aim to overthrow the private banks & just create a new flawed system based on the same false beliefs about money. Yet I believe the solution could be to restrict private banks creating credit (which acts the same as money in practice), or recognizing lies that the 1% tell. But mostly, to it would be, based on investigation, to unlearn false beliefs & learn the truth about what money is, how it is created and destroyed, and what does & does not give it value. So "overthrowing the oppressors", just leads to new oppressors, except they don't even have that awareness yet! So to me, this is outdated, and will not create more human & creature flourishing in the future, whereas other stuff could.
Mark Daniels Me trying to get to the heart of the matter, of why I believe the domination/submission game (essential to Marixsm, yes?) is bad & counterproductive: Marx's solution appears to be incompatible with learning to Love oneself & others, including enemies. He doesn' take into account that everyone has a sinful condition, not just people who are current real or imagined oppressors. My understanding is that evil comes from MY desire to desensitize myself to my own pain & avoid experiencing fear (usually terror), which is based on false beliefs I absorbed in my childhood (mainly from my mother, as she was the biggest influence on me & I spent the most time with her). I haven't heard of Marx addressing any of these causes of sin. I believe me going into a power struggle to dominate others and feed my emotional addictions will feel good in the short term. But it is disastrous if I really would have power to overthrow others, esp if I lacked awareness of my sin and its causes, & since I have little sincere desire to Love (but desperately want others to love me, the way I was taught what live was in my early years). This is the human condition. I could give many practical examples. I am not much better than those i desire to dominate, I just have less power. Other things lead to process, not a dominantion/submission game. That's why I believe Marxist worldview is mistaken, and is not the way to progress. I have never seen a Marxist with that awareness, not yet anyway if they do exist, and it seems basically incompatible to me. I have never heard of a Marxist, for example speak about his own contribution to the things they claim to be fighting against. But many examples of contributing towards what they claim to be fighting against (e.g. a judgemental and sexist anti-sexist).
Mark Daniels Great reply. I’ve learnt something from your comments, and RUclips was the platform! So not necessarily a poor replacement for education, it could be argued that if used positively it could be a great tool for us all to learn from each other.
Say what you will about Marxism, just read up on life for the working poor in Victorian Britain before you cast your judgement: this was a time of the workhouses and back-to-back housing, where people worked 12-hour days doing hard labour in filthy disease-ridden factories for tuppence a day. Study that era and tell me with a straight face that Marx didn't have a point.
+GODOFHELLFIRE3 You can say much the same of the modern era. There has been quantitative change, naturally, by qualitatively things are by-and-large the same.
***** Oh it goes without saying that things are better now, there being the NHS, minimum wage laws, state pension plans, trade unions, etc, etc. Someone in my Romanticism seminar said the same thing; the only problem is that the humanitarian aspect of Marxist philosophy, even though it was more relevant then than now, is still valid in that there is still corporate greed, corruption, and so on and so forth, in places like Dubai especially.
Shakia Gerald no it didn’t Look to 3rd world countries and you’ll see the real explanation This is all smoke and mirrors to polish the turd I’ve been on mission trips and seen what Marxism does to oppress people and it’s 1000x worse than capitalism I’ve lived out of my car in America and that’s a better lifestyle than communism Had to get that off My chest 🤷🏼♂️ God bless!
Yes, it makes sense but still is an idiot ideology only a child could come up with, reminder, Marx was unemployed his whole life and supported by a capitalist
This video keeps mentioning "equality" as though Marx espoused this as a central tenant of socialism. He didn't. He understood "equality" as an utterly abstract and meaningless term. Instead preferring the more concrete demand: the emancipation of the working class.
Cambridge have you read Marx? I get this faint impression that you have not and what you are writing is solely based on second-hand knowledge. Anyway, thank you for proving the idiocy of those who try to oppose and mock Marx on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
@@clockfixer5049 On Marxism, I have been reading mostly works by Marx and Engels. Although I do plan to read works by other Marxists, like David Harvey, Foucault, Althusser...
Same... This looks so good in theory but I have such a bad taste in my mouth when I hear the word Communism. Shouldn't we be really concerned about the direction we are moving?
So I came in with an open mind and this is what I gathered "Business owners have more money than me, that is unfair. I should have more money and they should have less money even though I did nothing to earn it." Is that a good summary?
you missed the part that education influences ones future status... and the status you were born in. the bourgeosie's offpsring was also bourgeosie. a poor mans offspring will most probably be a poor man. damn nucklehead.
Megadeth6633 If you're born into a poor family apply yourself. Obviously education is a factor that you missed in Marxism 101 because you don't know how to spell knuckle.
hieldjiv Business owners need you to work for them, you sell them your Labor, but you only get a small portion of the Capital you have worked to produce, represented in a commodity. this is why in a sweat shop factory for instance you can make clothes all week, but at the end not have enough money to buy one item of clothing you have made. this is obviously a simplification of hundreds of pages of Marx. this is why he thought the system was unfair because the worker did not receive a fair portion of the goods he made. this is because the Capitalist is concerned with profits so he will try to keep wages low. where Marx saw a contraction of capital being is when the worker couldn't afford to buy the goods on the market. One of the ways Marx saw this contradiction as being overcome by the rich is to rack up the credit economy, hence credit and debit cards but this cant go on forever and leads to crisis, this will be solved by new ways of making money but every form of capitalism has a plethora of ways it can and inevitably will fail, ie recessions of 1929, 1973 and the one we are in today. Over time the workers will get so disillusioned there will be a revolution, that in a nutshell is it
hieldjiv apply yourself? you have no notion of psychology and what it depends on. sorry I misspelled knucklehead, I speak 4 other languages natively. it's hard to be so smart sometimes.
This video is extremely short, so I wanted to present my personal written examination and critique of capitalism, Especially for all the trolls out there who think they are experts on Marx's work or want to misrepresent his work just so they can continue justifying false idealizations of how capitalism operates while ignoring the reality, the history and ultimately the reality of how capitalism operates today. 1.How Capitalism Operates When many laymen people examine the predominate economic system of capitalism, they interpret it through a limited array of experiences, or the media depiction of capitalism, regardless of how limited the analysis of the media or experience are when discussing capitalism. They will equate capitalism as being merely a market based economy, or 'free-trade', or that its 'free exchange' and therefore 'fair exchange'. These misconceptions are not only misleading, but fail to capture the full reality of capitalism. Capitalism is not just a system of trading, like what medieval merchants did during the middle ages. Nor is it a system of ancient self sufficiency where the farmers plowed the land collectively for themselves and their community, and where the hunters brought wild game as their contribution, or where the clothes maker and and primitive medicine producers made their contributions and educators theirs. Least of which, it is certainly not a system by which the producers and laborers of society have control over the things they produce, nor, be it material goods or services, nor the production tools that make it possible to produce their goods and services. Even after, all throughout history, all production and all advances leading up to our current 'modern' industrial economy was made possible by their efforts. Capitalism is a system by which all of production responsible for material goods, such as the factories, the farms and the natural resources are controlled, and anything else that the proletariat working class must utilize to produce their goods and service, are entirely owned by private individuals for the purpose of their own profits. All of Production within an economy is essentially controlled by a class of people, the capitalist class and the major wealthy share holders for the purposes of maximizing their profits, meaning that the economy is designed to work for their interest. How this process functions at a closer, detailed examination, is a frightening tale of how the modern capitalist economy developed, how it functions today, and where it is heading. The process of the capitalist mode of production starts with the fact that all production necessary for material goods is controlled by private holders and major share-holders of farm land, factories, and natural resources, is once more referred to as the capitalist class. This means that the workers of society that need to make a living, be it doing manual labor itself in the fields, factories and mines, or the services itself that must be supplied by manual labor, must make a living by working for the class of people that actually own all production. There is no other way for these workers to make a living since the means of production and natural resources are not in infinite supply for them to freely access. *Key point of analysis*: As these workers work to produce goods and services within the capitalist economy, they are paid a wage, however whatever goods and services they used their brains and muscles to produce, is owned by the owners of production, the capitalist class. This class of people sells the final goods and services in the market, at a price they set, whether it is to other members of the capitalist class or directly through consumer retail. As these goods and services are sold in the markets at the price they are set for, the owners of production, being also the owners of whatever was produced, can decide also how to distribute the final proceeds of the products sold. This means that they can choose to give the workers that actually produced the goods and services a tiny fraction of the proceeds of their labor in the form of a wage. *Put simply, the working class is paid way lower than their labor is actually sold for in the markets, so that the owners of production, the major shareholders and the corporate executives can profit directly off of the labor of the workers under them*, simply because they know that the economic system is inherently structured to serve their interest. There is a very simple term that can be used to describe a system structured where one group of people gets to own and profit off the labor that the workers of society do, and that term is _exploitation_. It is absolutely impossible for capitalism to be a 'non-exploitative' system since the wealth of the capitalist class and the owners of production is inherently derived by how much they can exploit the labor of the working class by minimizing their pay. If the working class actually owned what they produced there could be no capitalism in that, since in such a circumstance, the working class would then be making the decisions on how to distribute the proceeds of their labor, and ultimately control how to produce goods and even what to produce.
+Sokami Mashibe Conclusion to part one: The capitalist economic system, being how its structured, is systematically designed and rigged to benefit the interest of the capitalist class that is in charge of production. The main point of its existence, is to ensure the maximum profits of the capitalist class and executives ultimately in control of the system from the top down as the goods and services generated by the working class is sold in the markets. regardless of the inherent direct and indirect consequences this has on the working class, the vast devastation it brings to the environment, The alienation it brings to people and the economy, and the many other extensive social ills it brings to people who are indoctrinated to accept the system as natural, distract themselves from how they feel at work, or who try to justify about how they are being controlled and used in their jobs or even aim to try and be at the top one day. All decisions made from the capitalist class at the top are not done for the benefit of the working class but for their profits. The working class are merely cogs in the machine, whom are from the moment they are born, are to be educated, indoctrinated in the status quo, fed news from corporate owned media sources, for the purpose so that when they go to work they can more efficiently produce a profit for capitalist, as ultimately, across all jobs, we, the working class are hamsters on a wheel. All extreme wealth collected by the capitalist class come from these beloved hamsters that they feed, provide a cage for, and occasionally pet so that when the hamsters go back on the wheel, they can continue to serve their profits all over again, as the capitalist class sells the hamsters goods and services in the markets. Just like all other class based systems before it, capitalism is inherently hierarchical in the relationship between the capitalist class and the working class. All production is managed from the top-down by the capitalist class in an effort to maximize how much can be extracted from the working class labor, how cost can be cut, even if its detrimental to others, all in an effort to maximize their own profits. The working class has no choice but to be subservient to this relationship if they want to make a living. This type of top-down hierarchical mode of production is not meant to streamline the decision making process so that production can be more useful for the working class, but instead more useful for the interest of the capitalist so that they may milk more from the workers. The working class in their workplaces have no say in the process of how the production they use should be used, even if they are the ones that know how to produce the goods and services. They Do not get to determine what it is they should produce, how they should produce it, and most of all the workers do not even get to distribute the full proceeds generated by their collective labor among themselves. They may depend on their work to make a living, but surely cannot influence it themselves, they are expected to merely be the subservient, conforming, controlled, and used tools for the interest of capital in this inherently hierarchical relationship. The capitalist economic system, being how its structured, is systematically designed and rigged to benefit the interest of the capitalist class that is in charge of production. The main point of its existence, is to ensure the maximum profits of the capitalist class and executives ultimately in control of the system from the top down as the goods and services generated by the working class is sold in the markets. regardless of the inherent direct and indirect consequences this has on the working class, the vast devastation it brings to the environment, The alienation it brings to people and the economy, and the many other extensive social ills it brings to people who are indoctrinated to accept the system as natural, distract themselves from how they feel at work, or who try to justify about how they are being controlled and used in their jobs or even aim to try and be at the top one day. All decisions made from the capitalist class at the top are not done for the benefit of the working class but for their profits. The working class are merely cogs in the machine, whom are from the moment they are born, are to be educated, indoctrinated in the status quo, fed news from corporate owned media sources, for the purpose so that when they go to work they can more efficiently produce a profit for capitalist, as ultimately, across all jobs, we, the working class are hamsters on a wheel. All extreme wealth collected by the capitalist class come from these beloved hamsters that they feed, provide a cage for, and occasionally pet so that when the hamsters go back on the wheel, they can continue to serve their profits all over again, as the capitalist class sells the hamsters goods and services in the markets. 2. How Capitalism has developed and operates in the world today particularly on a global scale (unfinished) The way capitalism is structured today has evolved far outside a single nation state. Marx predicted that capitalism would remain domestic and continue to exploit the working class domestically, while colonialism would continue to be the expression of how bourgeois nation-states exploit the outside world, and ultimately feed the domestic system of capitalism. He never predicted that capitalism would expand to the point to become a 'global' system and in effect replace colonialism as a new form of imperialism, raw economic domination of other nations, especially the third world. Modern circumstances have changed. The same mechanics of capitalist exploitation still exist in both the first world and the third world, yet the absolute vast majority of the first world wealth is literally derived from the extreme exploitation of labor and resource extraction in third world nations. The third world production and resources are owned by multinational corporations which pays third-world workers absolutely abysmal wages to mine resources, and produce products for the multi-national corporation. All of these goods and resources gets shipped to the first world, and because they were acquired at an absurdly cheap price, it results in cheap prices in the first world. Not all these goods go straight to retail, but also fuel the whole system of first-world western capitalism. Capitalism is the new form of imperialism. *This means that when first-world workers buy products in western capitalism, they can afford them with their wage since their own exploitation is compensated for by even more extreme exploitation in the third world*. It still has the same systems of extreme exploitation that Marx analyzed before, but its on a more global scale.
+Sokami Mashibe They made some mistakes here. 1) Marxism is not in opposition to capitalism, or anything like that. Marxism is a theoretical framework used to understand how societies are organised. A framework that Marx used to study past societies (hence his approach being historical), and focuses on the material stuff produced, and how the surplus is divided up (hence his approach being historical materialism). 2) After capitalism there should be socialism, where all goods are owned by all people communally. Communism is the ultimate mode of production, where all things are produced by machines, and people do leisure, leisure, leisure. At least that's the idea. Marx never explained how a communist society would be organised. In spite of these (and other smaller) mistakes, the video is not too bad.
Equally easy to understand: Marx never worked. He lived completely off his rich capitalist friend, Engels. Yes, Engels was rich. His family owned textile factories in England. Engels liked fox-hunting. He gave Marx enough money not only to live but to marry and have children, as well as house servants. One servant was a pretty young maid. Shortly after Marx's wife gave birth to their 3rd child, he seduced the young maid and got her pregnant. When it became known she was pregnant, he feigned moral disgust and fired her immediately. He never acknowledged his daughter, who never knew her father, and he never supported either her or her unfortunate mother. Engels stepped forward to pay for Marx' personal immorality. This story remained unconfirmed until Engels was ill and close to death, when he finally revealed it. Marx himself had died 12 years earlier.
@@dixonpinfold2582 LOL. Its just a theory how a society will colaspe. If you are saying "it never worked", then you are an idiot. Please don't post misinformation. It's not an economics plan to execute. It's only a theory of how a society will colaspe. So. you can say, "the rich will colaspe a society" or " the rich will not colaspe a society". If a society colaspes because the rich end up owning everything and the workers own nothing. The workers stuck in the rent trap with nothing to own other than a bicycle. You would say, he was right in his theory. Its just a theory how a society will colaspe.
@@dixonpinfold2582 His work was the canary in the coal mine. How can you study his WORK, if he never worked? Nor will his theory work of not work. His work is only a theory how a society will colaspe (by the rich). He had a job. You study his WORK. His work said, arrest the rich for their crimes against humanity. His work was the canary in the coal mine.
@soulcapitalist6204 Marxist has no math to it Economics terms are math terminology, not psychological. The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context. Math is law. The study of law. Not the study of the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context Marxist has no math to it. Do you see the switch-a-roo
That was very helpful! Thank you to "The Curious Classroom"! Everybody, especially, visual learners can really benefit by this short video presentation.
Eva Benway The history presented in the video is distorted and bogus. Marxism is NOT a theory of anything; it is an idea not a theory; it is a science of fundamental sociopolitical change in order to establish power of a political party by propaganda and political actions and intervention into an established political order to usher in a totalitarian order. Marxism rests on assumptions that are illogical. For example; that men desire to be equal and satisfied with subsistence wages and do not compete to rise above the average. I cannot write a book here but history and economics are two of the major arguments against communism. Communism is the political philosophy that Marxism supports. Marxism is not a form of government or a theory; it is a political action science.
yupeng wu: are the operating board, managers, the engineers, the architects, machine designers and those that work in sales, purchasing, logistics, and other college degreed positions A)also workers and B) equal in pay to the guy or gal who drives the forklift?
Not mentioned: Children had always worked on farms. Child labour in factories was absolutely nothing new. It had always, always, always been the same. Reserving childhood for education instead of work was a development made possible by regulated capitalism. Capitalism created wealth, wealth made possible the creation of public education.
That is the most shallow view of society possible. If you want to break away, go into the woods and be an individual. Otherwise we are all in a group called society.
"It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority rule, but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both. This was the great American achievement-and if concern for the actual welfare of other nations were our present leaders’ motive, this is what we should have been teaching the world. "
And not a single philosophical giant preceding us could have envisioned the cancer of industrialization we are living through. The result of fulfilling the rights of the individual.
@@joeporter4920 I know and Japan is fishing the ocean dry.. don't worry gore said we'd be under water 10 years ago..40 years ago.. Now it's what 9 years 12 years ?? I can't keep up
@@joeporter4920 let's go back to glass bottles. Let's stop companies from making everything out of plastic like that useless tile backer bullshit orange stuff.. It's useless.. It's plastic
This video is missing several key aspects. One of the biggest is that many of Marx' ideas weren't just "theories" but critical analysis of the patterns of civilizations through a philosophy called Historical Materialism. You really can't understand Marx without understanding materialism and dialectic thinking. Skipping the philosophy of materialism is why many people get so confused about the natural and obvious conclusions that are drawn from it. It would be like trying to understand astrophysics without learning about relativity.
You don't need to be an astrophysicist to understand that it is always *evil* to take by force that which you do not own. Violent revolution of the proletariat in order to seize the means of production is evil.
The most glaring flaw in Marxist theory is believing the communal owners of goods (government) would fairly distribute the goods equally, and never use their positions as authoritarian or oppresively.
How is it fair things are communially own? You work hard to keep your factory successful while others does nothing. Is that fair? That is why though people own business , many fail. In addition, no everyone who is rich are born with a silver spoon. A lot educate themselves , worked harder, had more perseverance, had the right mindset, and don't complain. They deserve the richness their work resulted in.
nice video. was looking for a simple explanation. Tough im.sure there's one big error. He makes it sound like farmers had it good under feudalism. Peasants were treated terribly in the feudal system. I think kids laboured too. Definitely some bias here.
_"It doesn't really matter actually because communism equalizes the classes by making everyone lower class or dead."_ Yeah...that's how the Soviets won the space race. What do Amish huff to get stupid high? Horse shit? It's horse shit, isn't it?
0:34 thats a small but important inaccuracy. Marxism doesn't frame society as in conflict between rich and poor, although there is heavy correlation between the two groups. It views society as in conflict between the class interests of those who sell their work for a living and those who derive their wealth predominantly through property they own. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The worker and the capitalist. The former encompasses some rather wealthy people and the latter a few rather low income folks but in general the concentration of wealth is indeed overwhelmingly in the hands of the latter. This is because, despite what neo-classical economists will tell you, you can't actually make anything with any use value without putting labour into it, sure you can effect supply and demand to make something of little value sell for an extremely high price but the actual use value compared to the raw materials it is made up of, is derived from all the work done to transform the raw materials into the finished product. Thus the capitalist, who wishes to derive wealth from their physical capital or finance capital (physical capital, or as Marx termed it the means of production is the tools/machines/buildings/books/computers/storage space, what ever it is that is needed to perform a production job in a given industry) must either labour themself with the property to produce a product that someone else will buy, in which case their business will remain small and their productivity eclipsed by larger businesses, will likely be forced out of the market or they can pay someone else to work with or on their combined with raw materials to produce the thing they sell. The person they pay is a worker or proletarian, they have the knowledge and/or skills to use the physical capital to create the product the capitalist sells but not the physical capital itself. There are many reasons for this but mainly boil down to lack of funds due to not being born with property rights to anything. The worker is incentivised to maximize their output of pay relative to their input of labour, the capitalist is incentivised to maximize the money they're paid relative to how much they spend. If the capitalist cannot bring in more money than they spend, they will be forced to become a worker as they lose all their property. If the worker cannot maximize the amount their paid relative to the energy they expend in labour, they will fail to pay their costs of living and participating in society. If the capitalist cannot maintain a workers services they must find another worker more willing to tolerate their working conditions or their business will also fail and they will be force to become a worker. However if the worker does not maintain a job they will not receive any pay at all and not be able to pay their costs of living. They will be cold, starving, sick, homeless and then dead. As you can see there is a power imbalance here. Regardless there is a clear conflict of interest between the worker and the capitalist. It is of course rarely as simple as all that but generally speaking this is a true to life albeit simplified model of the conflicting interests at the heart of capitalism.
This is what marx envisioned, everyone doing what they like. Some sitting on a tree pretending to be an owl wouldve pleased marx... Thats marxism in practice! 😂
ruclips.net/video/UnkMA0l7Af8/видео.html People think the bad Fantasy's called Socialism, Communism, Workers Party, Peoples Party, etc.... are separate ideas. Marx conjured up all these fantasies sitting on his fat ass in London. He was a spoiled punk college brat who studied humanities at the university of Bonn. Like kids of today he lived in a socialist fantasy world. He never grew up. he relied on his business pal Engels to support his lazy ass because Marx did not want to work. He came from a pampered home and ended up so poor his kids died, and his wife went nuts. What a F@CK-IN role model. He was just like the Socialist trained violent punk kids today that set fire to Portland and kill kids and cops. Their brains are filled with bad socialist fantasy's. Zero regard for others, any morals, they just assume kill you because you are not the lazy genius that they are. Marx had not solutions. Look at the F@CK-IN results. The world is a tough place it is never fair. Real solutions to real problems are plenty. Solutions come from free people willing to work and learn real skills. All these socialist games end up in utter disaster from their own incompetent Fantasy's. Freedom requires a lot of fun effort. If you see a full blow radical socialist run like hell and protect yourself. They consider themselves gods full of envy, they rarely do productive work. All they want is to kill you steel your SH*T then kill off their so-called friends. Is not life hard enough we got to babysit these angry birds that want to burn your family so they can feel content. Trump that spurred the best economy and life for African American’s to date is a witch to be burned by these Marxist’s. They spend so much F*CK’N time setting fire to positive solutions the F*CKIN Smoke blocks the view of these absolute positive results. They screw with people who just want the freedom to produce a better world. These Marxist Fantasy's need to be extinguished. Not by violence but though success. www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx
As Ben Shapiro put it: if I was in a room of 3 people with 100 dollars, the other 2 with no money, it's not fair. Hence it should be divided equally irrespective of how hard I earned the money.
People who say "communism sounds good on paper". Are you silly? Just imagine yourself, trying to explain to an Indian chef that they should give their farms to one persons, who will own all of the corns and make others harvest them for him paying them with papers. It's not that easy to change the society at once.
@@Cyborg_Lenin no, he didn't. Because in capitalism, nobody just takes something unlike in communism, where you just take and divide everything and then never create anything new. it's why literally every communist country has failed over and over again - because they stagnate and surprisingly, nobody wants to work when there is no incentive to work. there is literally nothing stopping from 2000 people taking out a loan together and opening up a business except no 2000 people will agree on how to run a factory and who gets to do what because surprisingly, worse and better jobs still exist so complete equality is just unobtainable.
@@Cyborg_Lenin I understand that you're lenin, but how is that capitalism? You are really lenin. stupid as it gets. Do I have to tell you how many people were killed in my country because that stupidity and to get from capitalism to communism?
Why do people think that equality is possible under any system? Has anyone heard of the Pareto Principle? The question is which system produces the MOST wealth. I'd rather live comfortably in an unequal society than live in a society where everyone is equal at 0. (except, of course, those who purport to be leaders fighting on our behalf, who will end up with all the wealth, as juxtaposed to capitalists who create and organize enterprises having the wealth). It seems as though people believe those with wealth did not earn it, which isn't a new idea at all, it's a very old idea and the sequence of actions following this dogma have left enough bodies rotting in the streets. Encourage people to build for themselves instead of taking from others.
Labour is entitled to all it creates. It's ironic you saying 'Encourage people to build for themselves instead of taking from others' when capitalists really did not earn their wealth. The wealth of human labour and production is currently benefited by with unequal and unearned distribution of currency as a means to access those goods. Goods are produced and consumed in deliberate patterns that feed back and recycle this social aim of social stratification and production for profit rather than production for need. Propaganda and social construction presents this world and self-preserving world view as the most natural - that by mere birthright some are above others and deserve lavish exuberance while those that actually make it possible grovel in turmoil. Nothing about humans is natural, but capitalism especially is not only unnatural but irrational. It is the task of the international proletariat to overcome this well established and historically vital but outdated and permeable milestone of capitalism and go forth into a new stage in economic development. Any violence that is met in the revolution is the result of the hostage-keepers of the earths resources and labour-power in their reluctance to surrender hegemonic control of the earth's environment and society Diseases make more money getting treated rather than prevented. Wars make more money getting continuously fought rather than prepared for. Capitalism keeps greed and stability for the capitalists by suppressing voices or real world examples that explain or succeed its historical temporality.
@@CraigWazHere No but the labor didn't create anything, remember wage earners just show up to work the tools and the buildings and the capital are already there. That wealth had to be created first. Labor is valuable, that's why when you sell your labor you receive purchasing power in return. Labor isn't creating wealth the laborers are just the principal beneficiaries of the wealth that's already been created. As for the proletariat, yeah, how did the USSR turn out again? The murderous ideology of collectivism is responsible for how many lives now? On what level are you a member of the bourgeoisie. Should you pay for your status? The revolution might end up pointing its gun at you.
@@historynut3460 labour creates everything. Those tools, buildings and capital you mention have a long heritage of identical and then gradually less advanced tools, tracing back to the very moments in our evolution where we learnt to use tools, or where God laboured to create the universe if you so please. The history of people on this planet is the history of us discovering useful natural materials and labouring on them, re purposing them to our needs. We have spent much of our development living in collectives through the mere necessity of survival, and we never really fully remove ourselves of the need for survival especially in the uncertain future. So, long will the nagging reality of the need for collectivism continue. The historical shift where the parasitic class came in is described as 'primitive accumulation' and describes dark periods in history such as land clearances and the end of cottage industry, and the general castration of the ability of communities to be self sufficient, instead having to sell their labour to buy the necessities of survival. With that said, the development of capitalism was essential for technological progress and population growth to continue accelerating upwards, it's just now in its overripe and planet-bursting stages. Labour being the 'principal beneficiaries' of wealth created isn't right at all. Bosses receive the lions share of the benefits of their worker's labour and depending on the pressure placed on them, by for example threat of a striking workforce which could crash it all down, will reimburse the workers with whatever quantity he decides is fit to keep them off his back. He might pay them well or he might pay them just enough to subsist and drag themselves into work the next day, it's up to the boss. The USSR turned out horribly but is best described as state-capitalism. There are hundreds of valid reasons why Marxists don't feel guilty for its popular association with our ideas, demonstrating how Stalin diverged from them or why the conditions in these countries wasn't ready for anything beyond the initial development of capitalism - Marx expected advanced economies like Britain or Germany to spark the first emergences of proletarian rule. The revolution should be international to tackle the international economy of capitalism. I don't fear for revolution because I have know that in difficult times, people pull together and our strength is with eachother. I would take sympathy towards any of the capitalist class who find themselves under threat of violence in the event of revolution (with exceptions) as the system isn't propped up by any individuals and we all play our part in it, it's what we can build going forward that matters. It's fair that we have these conversations about the deaths of so-called communist experiments but if you want me to begin talking about the harm caused by capitalism/imperialism/colonialism it'll be a long conversation.
HyacinthHouse so the forklift driven by a laborer just popped into existence because there were others before it? Got it, they just evolve like animals. As the other fella said, the laborer shows up to work in a building designed by an architect, electrical engineer, and financed by risk takers. Pretty good deal for that laborer, especially those in capital intensive businesses as the cost of labor becomes less and less a % of total costs allowing the laborer more leverage to ask for raises. The best deal pursued by many laborers is to increase their skills and value thru specialized training, at which point they no longer identify with the unskilled laborer.
Marx was brilliant in understanding capitalism. Unfortunately he underestimated the difficulties to establish a happy and functioning socialistic society. Would be great to hear his comments on the soviet union.
As Capitalisum & Communisum are the two extremes of theroies of control is there a middle ground we can get behind ? Do we have to live with either or ?
They're called Liberals/Social Democrats. People who believe that capitalism can be reformed. Those who understand the true nature of capitalism knows that its demise is inevitable.
*Every political ideology is mind creating other mind*. If people just knew that the mind is not the key to true equality, because the nature of the mind is to conquer, to seek pleasure to strive for always more, more power, money, enz.. Politics are meant to enslave people. Just accept that in a society people are to divided to agree. That is why it is important to change your view on life and rethink your political ideology, or better just drop it. Change your view according to the *Truth of Life* ( best explanation of the big picture of life). It will change your view on life in the best way possible, it is thekey to true justice, equality and peace. Google *TruthContest read the Present*
"The nature of the mind is to conquer, to seek pleasure, to strive for always more, more power, money..." How would altruism be explained then? This statement seems to be conflating the *typical* mind under *capitalist culture*, which is quite hedonistic, with the human mind *in general*, which can be hedonistic, but can also be altruistic, based on what sort of environment it's raised in and what sort of experiences it has.
I just finished listening to the communist manifesto and marx did not say anything about believing they should be communally owned businesses, he said state owned. That’s dangerous. It drives me nuts that people hang onto these theories and ideas and completely forget about the human spirit. It’s only natural to want to strive to be and do better, whether that means to be a better person, work harder or be a better provider for yourself and your family.
I don't see the part where trained marxists requires multiple mansions like the BLM founders. Also where does the clamor for free stuff come in? Sounds like originally they wanted a job.
Most of the issues people have with capitalism can usually be blamed on government intervention. Capitalism itself involved consensual trade and things of that nature, you're not exploiting someone when you provide them with a product and they provide you with money, its mutually beneficial. Capitalism has helped make everyone richer, even the poor are richer than they would of been years ago. Wealth can be created, its not like there is one pie and people are taking too much of it, more people are creating multiple pubs and taking a share of theirs and giving the rest to the public as seen by big companies and small companies.
It is exploitation though. You have 3 options: #1. Be a worker, be exploited, have some money #2. Don’t be a worker, don’t be exploited, don’t have any money #3. Be the capitalist, exploit others, have lots of money
Actually, the bourgeoise are the wealth ruling class; what we would consider "upper class" or "the 1%" in America. Proletariats are middle and lower class.
The middle class are split between the petite bourgeoisie and the working class. You cannot ascribe any percentage to the bourgeoisie: it's not defined that way.
Yeah they just had to work in the fields dusk to dawn for their king in exchange for tiny morsels of bread, never able to climb out of the position they were in.
Here’s the problem, plain and simple, democratic capitalism, which we have here, means you have the choice to work and earn capital by which any means you like. In socialism and communism, you do not have choice.
Is this some kind of joke? This video explains nothing of marxism. Forces of production, relations of production, modes of production, base, superstructure, use/surplus value? None of these key marxist terms are used
In america they have the immigrants doing it and they love it cuz what they are use to in they country is nothing but not knowing it is wrong cuz they are just getting corporations richer and they are barely making it.
@@abrakadabra9033 they're happy with whatever they can get because it goes back to feed their families. If they didn't like it they would not keep coming to America. They know how the system works and that doesn't deter them at all from coming to the US.
@@abrakadabra9033 immigrants are actually working harder than Americans therefore putting Americans out of work and they're steadily bringing in more profits as they excel in skills. Many Americans have become complacent and lazy in their careers allowing immigrants to surpass them. They complain after the fact that immigration is a bad thing taking American jobs only because they're too sorry to get up and do anything about it. In my occupation for the last 5 years it has been tough to find anyone who wants to do seasonal work that could lead to a full time position with more pay. People want high wages but they do not want to put in the work/time to get it.
It's true that education and personal development is key to equality. But in my observation, being a founder of an idealistic educational institution, so far, in my 2 years of experience. Equality is not the end goal. Equality is just a way to level things, to make space for new things. The raw truth imo is that there's nothing out there but what you perceive, create, build, and discover for yourself. The whole system is self-explanatory. A system as a whole. You exist in a system where the system allows certain things and limits another. But we'll see, as I observe more from this existence. I'll get back to this post and update this way of thinking someday.
From ploughing through "Capital" I gain the impression that the kind of world he had in mind was one of self employed artisans freely exchanging labour with one another . His argument being essentially that labour ("power") is just as much a commodity as any other and the set up has been skewed from two people on an equal basis to one person degrading the other to generate more money for himself. A lot of volume one denounces the advent of machinery and the degredation of weavers by having them collectivised in factories to generate profits for others, its actually quite luddite at times. Its pretty out of touch with the realities of actual, genuine working class life and experience and the book itself is pretty impenetrable to all but bourgeois economists. I think the fact Marx believed that a newspaper serialisation would help spread the word among the proles just shows he was on a totally different planet. His conflict theory derived from Hegel and the whole system would depend on everybody being equally aware of that philosopher's ideology. Given that formal state education was in its infancy at the time he was writing and that most of his intended audience were practically illiterate, it merely resolves itself into just another form of bourgeois dictatorship with proles being told what to think and how to think it by bourgeois ubermenschen as with religion. Little wonder most of the "revolutionaries" like Lenin, Castro, Trotsky etc came from upper class backgrounds and little wonder that it all dissolved into shit/ another form of oppression. Henry Mayhew and Arthur Morrison's works show prole life as it was. Become familiar with them and you see this nonsense for what it is. "Capital" is a useful work for analysing the nature of capitalism but revolutions based on ideas concerning commodity trading and the three circulating facets of capital? Just bourgeois projections by over ambitious wankers who can't wait to plug their bank accounts into the collectivised labour of the whole of the peasantry.
@@tungumal1584 so the baker at the bakery makes the same as the production manager at the aircraft plant....and the marxit leader of Marxist state has the same financial power as the baker too...tell me another lie
@@tungumal1584 so the baker and the engineer designing a passanger jet eat cabbage in the same soup bowl...the engineer would love that after 8 years of college while the baker took cooking lessions on the web watching RUclips vids
Karl Marx was a true radical liberal in a philosophical sense(not in an economical way). Not small portions of people around the world get the wrong impression of Marxism because no one really teaches the very essence of the idea. It's all about stepping forward to real equality of human beings.
Yes, Marxism is a political and economic philosophy that deals with the disparity in a social power structure. This notion is based on Karl Marx(1818-83)which was supported by Frederich Engels. Precisely explained .thank you!!
There is a way Communism could work. You must eliminate the need for human labor. Automaton robot slaves might be the answer. People can then go about their business of enjoying life and pursuing non-laborous activities. Otherwise, I just can't see it happening.
danielc1112 I base it on reality as well, looking at countries and societies that have adopted Marx's teachings. Maybe you can state it better than the propaganda I have heard from my masters? Why would it work inspite humanities laziness and streak for exploitation?
There is a group of proponents of just that position, called Automation Socialism. Based on current trends of automation, their ideology may gain a great deal of support as more automation leads to increasing unemployment.
***** " If human laziness is universal and no one would work in communism," --As has been self evident in all failed/failing communist countries. Why were they all short on food, low on technology and standard of living? Once China adopted a more capiltalistic approach they prospered, look at where they are now. The same can be said of Sweden. You have a total misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism rewards those who devise the best product/service in the most efficient way possible. The consumers are winners as well as the producers. Perhaps you are thinking of feudalism/serfdom, something capitalism freed us from. Over-regulated capitalism is what is hurting us today. You must find the distinction.
What are your thoughts on ESOPs? Is this just capitalism with the employees who happen to own company stock or is this what Marx had in mind and/or consistent with his ideology?
Its not consistent because it still operates under a profit motive and thus requires cutting down wages as low as possible. A company owned and run by workers will always loose under capitalism to a company where a capitalist runs their workers into the grave.
ruclips.net/video/UnkMA0l7Af8/видео.html People think the bad Fantasy's called Socialism, Communism, Workers Party, Peoples Party, etc.... are separate ideas. Marx conjured up all these fantasies sitting on his fat ass in London. He was a spoiled punk college brat who studied humanities at the university of Bonn. Like kids of today he lived in a socialist fantasy world. He never grew up. he relied on his business pal Engels to support his lazy ass because Marx did not want to work. He came from a pampered home and ended up so poor his kids died, and his wife went nuts. What a F@CK-IN role model. He was just like the Socialist trained violent punk kids today that set fire to Portland and kill kids and cops. Their brains are filled with bad socialist fantasy's. Zero regard for others, any morals, they just assume kill you because you are not the lazy genius that they are. Marx had not solutions. Look at the F@CK-IN results. The world is a tough place it is never fair. Real solutions to real problems are plenty. Solutions come from free people willing to work and learn real skills. All these socialist games end up in utter disaster from their own incompetent Fantasy's. Freedom requires a lot of fun effort. If you see a full blow radical socialist run like hell and protect yourself. They consider themselves gods full of envy, they rarely do productive work. All they want is to kill you steel your SH*T then kill off their so-called friends. Is not life hard enough we got to babysit these angry birds that want to burn your family so they can feel content. Trump that spurred the best economy and life for African American’s to date is a witch to be burned by these Marxist’s. They spend so much F*CK’N time setting fire to positive solutions the F*CKIN Smoke blocks the view of these absolute positive results. They screw with people who just want the freedom to produce a better world. These Marxist Fantasy's need to be extinguished. Not by violence but though success. www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx
The problem with now adays communism is that, its an excuse for political terror. Karl marx's name has been dragged in the mud and remembered as an evil cruel world veiw. I don't agree with everything karl marx says, but I agree more with him than I do with captalism. You have this system in America where the poor is forgotten about and the rich praised. If anything at all, what karl marx was trying to achive was probably what scandinavia is today.
henr360a I live in Sweden and It’s a shit hole now, mass immigration has destroyed this country and our whole system is probably gonna colapse soon. Pretty sure he didn’t want that
Lucas Bevins Sweden is thriving? Old people are getting homeless, unemployment is growing, taxes are getting bigger and bigger while they are not even putting money on things we need, our hospitals are a joke, they have no equiment they can’t even test people if they have Corona... the whole system is a joke and social democracy destroyed Sweden
This used alot of words and said nothing except people couldnt own land, couldnt farm anything, and children had to work for factories...how is this applicable today?
Psychology and realistically there is going to be someone that has to manage the commune. Otherwise who is going to take responsibility? And then that manager is going to have more responsibility than the rest of the individuals in the commune and thus the scales tip. No one is treated fairly and equally because the manager has a bigger role ensuring everyone is treated and working equally. And now you have just entered out of communism and into the world of crony capitalism. Big difference between crony capitalism and true capitalism. Its the crony capitalism(big business) that emeded itself within communism. And causes a bigger disparity between the classes. In the actual concept of Marxism it doesnt matter that Karl viewed it in a positive light. the core premise is rooted in communism. While you want your freedoms and demand your freedom you will end up believing voting for people who restrict your freedoms( in the long term). You end up funding bigger government and they end restricting your ability to live as an individual. True capitalism is business owners opening up small business mom and pop shops employing family and friends and people within the community and thus growing the community in a positive direction. Jeff Bezos has destroyed mom and pop shops- hes a democrat Warren Buffet owns most of american business- hes a democrat George soros- commited insider trading, and financial fraud and was banned from certain parts of the world. And is on of the richest men in the country... He too is democrat and supports antifa.
Stalin and Mao(2 biggest murderers in human history) are both what Communists really turned out to be , and while that is similar to Marxism there are key differences
Drink every time someone in the comments says "Communism sounds great in theory, it just doesn't work in practice."
+forfrosne How would you respond to this?
+The Oba Of Benin It's not an actual argument, it's a thought-terminating cliche. It's simply an appeal to the status quo and an inability to accept that the current way of doing things is not the best, or even the only, way of doing things. The same accusation is levelled as Right-Libertarians as well and they're equally sick of it.
Communism only works if it has the label (Made In Korea)
+forfrosne 1% of the global population own 50% of the wealth, poverty is rampant, and capitalist economists are always fucking wrong. This is funny because what it implies is that capitalism doesn't work in practice OR in theory!
AIek 1O And most of those people are wrong.
Hold up. why has nobody commented on how amazing this guys handwriting is
+Inxvate It's not his hand writing, hes using presentation software similar to powtoon where you can have animations (such as a hand writing words).
+Inxvate don't be stupid, that's a font.
lol
#/r/FULLCOMMUNISM
LOL :)
This channel will grow fast soon, markx my words
I'm from the future. It doesn't :(
@@TyagiAviral I'm from further in the future. It still doesn't :(
@Allie Neesan Jesus christ lol nobody said we supported marxism, we just think the video was a good explanation of it. I don't know why you went nuclear for such a mundane comment thread.
@Allie Neesan Oh ok thanks for the hot tip
@Allie Neesan your delusions of greater knowledge are rather disturbing.
The first time I actually went outta my way to find some educational information, and this video didn't disappoint. Some of you people who commented only further helped me. Wow.....
Google communist manifesto by Marx there are free PDFs. Then look up ideological beliefs of Stalin
@@Red19Rose17 why stalin? read the short article published by Albert Einstein called "why socialism" as a start, much better intro
this video sucked quite a bit though, i don't recommend looking at RUclips (unless you're specifically looking for lectures from marxist theorists, like badiou or heinrich) if you want to learn about these things
some introductory texts i _would_ recommend are the fundamentals for a marxist orientation and the original content of the communist program by amadeo bordiga and socialism utopian and scientific by engels. the first two are shorter, the latter is like a small book but pretty easy to read
@@caramel7050 Why don't Marxists just read Marx? Their reading of these other clowns in lieu of reading Marx is why they're so ignorant.
You can just get the info directly from the source and read Marx.
Umm, Marxism is based on the teachings or Karl Marx AND Frederich Engels.
expanded on the many revolutionary groups led by people in the global south
Ohloveeh and that is....
Jay Blake I haven’t listened to the podcast mainly because I got bored. But I have watched about 2 hours of anarcho communist short videos and I’m still not convinced. I debunked the surplus value and why we need investors.
You’ve actually made me less communist than I all ready was 😂😂
Jay Blake Still hasn’t worked. Every single problem he talks about and other channels you linked I could think of something to counter that. I’m a Conservative Social Democratic so I agree with helping people get through life things like that. But what I’ve never heard from communists is how it’s going to be better than capitalism. It’s not and never will be because you won’t have the element of competing therefore you won’t innervate and create wealth.
Believe me it’s easy to become a millionaire and an investor. If you invested £4,000 a year for 40 years in index funds at an average return of 7% (the average return on the stock market if 10%) you’ll be a millionaire. So it’s not impossible you have to sacrifice you present for your future if you want to make it.
@Jay Blake "scientific" as science as other social "science".
After re watching this a few times, I grasp what it is, I have a few learning difficulties and this helps me understand this topic more, thanks
@@SteveVon7 I'm not a socialist or anything I just heard of his name from time to time and always wondered who it was, that's all
@@SteveVon7 Did you inherit being an asshole from your parents or did they actively teach you to be one? Just asking for my Nature vs Nurture assignment.
@@SteveVon7 blasphemy.
@@CumminsCat Dude why are you trolling all of the comments? Go back to eating your bean bro.
@@bruhdamartinasty3636 it's my right like it is yours too bro. Offended much? I think so.
wow, if a factory owner is considered middle-class, I must be bottom of the barrel... lol
factories used to be a lot smaller.
Middle Class, not middle income percentile. Classes included Aristocracy in most european countries. These aristocrats were, however, nominally poorer than industrial stakeholders. Lenin hated the middle class even more than he did the aristocrats, since he viewed them as entitled proletarians, and he knew how easily the nobility could be killed off in a revolution.
If you ask me, all communists are envious, resentment driven blood hungry moralists. Not even worthy of being called monsters. Just slime.
😂😂😂
@@pmejia727 a very hard attempt at communism. But a total fail.
Nmontez what is?
I'm brand new to this channel and can I say, it's brilliant! The information is very concise and to the point and presented in a easy to understand and interesting way. And tackling the issues in a factual unbiased approach. You've earned a subscriber my friend. :)
The vast majority of Marx's work is critiquing capitalism. I don't think he spends nearly as much time talking about what a post-capitalist society might look like.
Libertarian Socialist Rants Just like every Leftist. Plenty of observations. No actual solutions.
@@timmcgrath3995 Dude, it's been 5 years.
WarpedJude Sorry! Is there a statute of limitations for You Tube comments?
@@timmcgrath3995 All this time... your comment makes even more sense.
@@timmcgrath3995 thank god..finaly...after all these years..??
WRONG: The Bourgeoisie is not the middle class, they are the ruling class. The proletariat takes power to build socialism, communism emerges far ahead from that point.
+dallaskenn Wrong, the ruling class is the rulers. Not the factory owners, or at least that was the idea at the time.
What you are confusing is the fact that now the owners have the power o influence the ruling class, and in some ways have risen above the ruling class.
It's not wrong, the bourgeoisie are in fact the middle class everyone below them is poor and poorer on the edge between survival and death.
The wealth of the bourgeoisie isn't even comparable to that of the elite.
The bourgeoisie is only someone that is a bit further from "the edge" and has a breath and a nice meal to spare, they might seem wealthy to you and they might feel rich comparing themselves to those who stand closer to the edge, but they know that they are not wealthy and that they are only better of than most.
+Selatin Atech It's wrong in terms of learning what Marx said, which is what the video is supposed to accurately state. It states it wrongly.
The middle class in the contemporary sense is normally defined through income brackets. Contrast this with the bourgeoisie, which Marx and Engels defined qualitatively by their relations to the means of production.
Are you out of your MILO-MIND???
Interesting fact; the first memory I have involving communism was when I was learning about it in middle school. I remember the definition being something along the lines of "everyone owns a piece of everything." And I couldn't help but ask, how was this a bad thing?
Me too... It's good from a empathetic pov... But it hinders the progress or further break throughs in certain fields... Because everyone has a stake in it, and everyones running in all directions... They cannot come to a one solid conclusion, which results in a stalemate...
@@realdaybreaker8013 not only is this untrue, but its been proven. During world war 1 russia was a shithole. the soviet union, when it became socialist, made the same amount of progress the british have made in 500 years, in 60. In fact the collapse of the soviet union had very little to do with socialism
@@realdaybreaker8013 no. workplace democracy would be established and the workers would have discussions.
@@it5official484 I'm very tempted to argue these uneducated claims, but what good is it to discuss the skies with a fish :/
@@ballefrans1156 oh yeah wise guy? enlighten me
Our nervous system is wired in a way that we get rewarded for our personal achievements. We hunt food, a bit of serotonin, we find a mate, a little extra more. The same is applicable to a capitalist society, you aspire towards something, you work towards it and make sacrifices and you achieve it and feel rewarded because of serotonin. A society of communism/marxism would eventually result in allocated jobs being a necessity, why would people work high labour jobs for zero reward? You no longer have the ability to be what you want, you are no longer rewarded for your contributions to society, you just go to work, get your allocated money, eat your food and survive. That's not life, that's existing.
AA yes. I was shocked when I first came to America and saw all the horrors of stupid laws and capitalism.
lol what, culture isn't suddenly destroyed under communism. please please please use a brain before rambling on YT
Well your made up version of socialism sure sounds bad. Good thing its not even close to what socialism means.
So many inaccuracies in this video: The conflict is against The Working Class and the Bourgeois, The Ruling Class. 'Middle-Class' is NOT a Marxian term, the Bourgeois are NOT Middle-Class, they're the the most class conscious layer of the ruling class as the Proletariat is to the Working Class.
Marx formulated his ideas in the context of 19th C. British society, which is traditionally obsessed over class, especially in relation to nobility versus commoners. However, the 19th C. British middle class was a large, expanding, and increasingly wealthy population - which Marx identified as the "bourgeois" class, which owned capital (especially the means of production). This was in contrast to the "proletariat" class, i.e. the worker class which owned no capital. As a Jewish German-born foreigner living in British society, Marx was naturally sensitive and highly conscious that he was an outsider.
Aaron Richards Bourgeois is a political term that is really an atavism. It has no real meaning outside of Marxism.
There are not only inaccuracies, there are lies and distortions to capture the ignorant. The Marxist leadership has successfully extended control over the education system through its Marxist agents in the political and education system in order to promote Marxism as a benevolent social solution to human problems; "Hope and Change."
Rich Graziano
Oh yes, global Neo-Liberal Capitalism is being highly undermined......
There is a distinction between the Ruling class (Bourgeoisie) & Middle class (Petite bourgeoisie-shopkeepers, butchers, etc.), but Marx basically lumped them in together. It’s easier to pit two groups directly against each other!
Here because I told a guy he looks like can’t swim and his response was I’m an emo embarrassment Marxist, no idea what this is 😫✊🏻
"looks like he can't swim" LMFAO
😂😂💀😩😭😭😩
LOL??
I found over the last 4 years people have been throwing around the word Marxism slot without actually knowing what they are talking about. If an unarmed black person is shot and killed by the police, and people protest it, they are apparently Marxists.
Sounds like he was a Jordan Peterson fan. Marxism is a generic term for anything that threatens their fragile masculinity.
It's not a few people, it's tens of millions of business owners, like the owner of this channel. I like how a 19th century philosophy that would not work in that time either, is some how applicable to today's world.
The owner of this channel is not a business owner. Your understanding of the world is so clearly deficient to the point that you don’t deserve to have an opinion on the matter.
Modern capitalism is an 18th century idea, and hasn't worked either lol
@@Oreo41212 Not sure how you can be so oblivious. Capitalism is what provides ever modern convenience in your life which you clearly have no gratitude for. Seems you wish to return to serfdom and subsistence farming, I highly doubt you would survive the labor.
@@Jonathan-ds6yj Lol capitalism is also responsible for the massive wealth gap, the homelessness crisis, exploitation and abuse of the middle east for oil, unaffordable health care, corporate lobbying to prevent any positive change, etc. Serfdom has overworked and underpaid people working fields while the kings took all the profit. Now it's just overworked and underpaid people working in factories while rich people take all the profit.
Literally no one is saying capitalism is worse than the systems we had before, even Marx recognized that capitilism was a necessary step to a better society, but it's still not a good society and it's had pretty much the same issues since the industrial revolution.
Maybe you'd actually looked around at the world around you a little bit, and saw where your iPhone came from, or maybe even read any of Marx's work, or listened to anything that isn't paid for by corporate oil tycoons you'd understand this. "Not sure how you could be so oblivious" lol.
@@Oreo41212 If you have a better solution than capitalism let's hear it. In the meantime it has lifted billions of people out of poverty, all I hear from that is "the wage gap" well let's examine that. Since food collection first began there has been a "wage gap" called successful hunters and unsuccessful. Various reasons for success or failure in hunting anything, but there is much to be done where one can tip the scales of success in a hunters favor. Some are always going to be better than others at any given thing, and further than that some are going to dedicate their life's work to a given trade or craft making them experts able to produce something far beyond what anyone not specialized could hope to produce. How would you propose you "overcome" this gap? Unless of course you thing digging a ditch is the same mental aptitude as understanding quantum physics for example?
Pretty sure there are some major flaws in this. First off, people were not free under feudalism, and they had to pay the land owner to use the land, and were basically subservient to them. Also, child labour existed before the industrial revolution under feudalism too. It's romanticism to claim that feudalism was somehow a free and glorious time for workers.. Conditions were awful, as was working in the factories was awful. I'm not sure of the relevance of child labour at all tbh... this video skipped out some major tenets of Marxism too, like the concept of alienation, and the idea of stages of capitalism. The bourgeoise is the upper class, and not the middle class. Marx, as far as I know, had little to say about the middle classes, as they by and large hadn't developed as a significant enough group at that time so the concept was alien. They came later on across Europe, and with that the growth of things like academia, liberalism and science.
This is a reminder that RUclips is a very poor replacement for real education. If you want to understand complex philosophies like Marxism you have to suck it up, read the texts themselves and the academic literature around it. It takes time... but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Shhh, you'll disturb their fantasies with all your facts.
Mark Daniels
Yeah I agree with you on some factual points. It also seems to me Marx was right about the problem, but not the solution - it is unrealistic, and treats workers as if they don't have the same sins as the oppressors (the oppressed (real or imagined), becoming the new oppressors).
Here is the reply I gave to someone else, but it also fits here, why, as far as I can tell so far, Marx was wrong about the solution:
If it is basic to Marxism that we SHOULD all be in a power struggle to dominate other people (which then ends up acting in rage toward them, which is destructive, not creative), THEN I consider that a very unloving and destructive attitude which is against real progress (meaning progress in the love of oneself and others as individuals, & what love is & isn't is about causing human & creature flourishing).
Essential to this, that I stand for and Marixsm appears to be against, is the great importance of CONSISTENT principles, rather than double standards between myself & my adversary. The dominantion/submission struggle doesn't seem compatible with that to me. And it also means reinforces that we don't learn to become trustworthy. I am not worthy of your trust if I want to dominate, control or punish you, am I? Neither are you, correct?
That is why I believe Marx is mistaken about how real progress & human flourishing is caused. I also have never heard from a Marxist that had consistent ethics, and why would they, if the solution is to gain power & "dominate the real or imagined oppressors" (yet somehow not become the new oppressors, despite one's own sinful condition but good design?). I am a Centre Left liberal, and the SJW's whom I see as unethical, dangerous and untrustworthy, appear to be influenced Marx's way of seeing society & using it as an excuse to treat others badly (because in that power game, everyone is treated as either oppressed, Ally or an oppressor).
If you know something I don't, and can have a respectful conversation, then under those conditions, your welcome to give me this information.
As an example, I believe that one of the greatest problems in the world, is false beliefs about money, emotional injuries about money, which creates fears about money, which creates scarcity and poverty.
I am a supporter of both MMT and www.positivemoney.org
Here is a brief description of MMT understanding of what money is:
ruclips.net/video/TDL4c8fMODk/видео.html
Here is a longer one (but not necessary if your much interested in this):
ruclips.net/video/mCOVldiGeQY/видео.html
The Marxist perspective would aim to overthrow the private banks & just create a new flawed system based on the same false beliefs about money.
Yet I believe the solution could be to restrict private banks creating credit (which acts the same as money in practice), or recognizing lies that the 1% tell. But mostly, to it would be, based on investigation, to unlearn false beliefs & learn the truth about what money is, how it is created and destroyed, and what does & does not give it value.
So "overthrowing the oppressors", just leads to new oppressors, except they don't even have that awareness yet! So to me, this is outdated, and will not create more human & creature flourishing in the future, whereas other stuff could.
Mark Daniels
Me trying to get to the heart of the matter, of why I believe the domination/submission game (essential to Marixsm, yes?) is bad & counterproductive:
Marx's solution appears to be incompatible with learning to Love oneself & others, including enemies. He doesn' take into account that everyone has a sinful condition, not just people who are current real or imagined oppressors.
My understanding is that evil comes from MY desire to desensitize myself to my own pain & avoid experiencing fear (usually terror), which is based on false beliefs I absorbed in my childhood (mainly from my mother, as she was the biggest influence on me & I spent the most time with her).
I haven't heard of Marx addressing any of these causes of sin. I believe me going into a power struggle to dominate others and feed my emotional addictions will feel good in the short term. But it is disastrous if I really would have power to overthrow others, esp if I lacked awareness of my sin and its causes, & since I have little sincere desire to Love (but desperately want others to love me, the way I was taught what live was in my early years).
This is the human condition. I could give many practical examples.
I am not much better than those i desire to dominate, I just have less power. Other things lead to process, not a dominantion/submission game. That's why I believe Marxist worldview is mistaken, and is not the way to progress.
I have never seen a Marxist with that awareness, not yet anyway if they do exist, and it seems basically incompatible to me.
I have never heard of a Marxist, for example speak about his own contribution to the things they claim to be fighting against. But many examples of contributing towards what they claim to be fighting against (e.g. a judgemental and sexist anti-sexist).
Mark Daniels Great reply. I’ve learnt something from your comments, and RUclips was the platform! So not necessarily a poor replacement for education, it could be argued that if used positively it could be a great tool for us all to learn from each other.
Say what you will about Marxism, just read up on life for the working poor in Victorian Britain before you cast your judgement: this was a time of the workhouses and back-to-back housing, where people worked 12-hour days doing hard labour in filthy disease-ridden factories for tuppence a day.
Study that era and tell me with a straight face that Marx didn't have a point.
+GODOFHELLFIRE3 You can say much the same of the modern era. There has been quantitative change, naturally, by qualitatively things are by-and-large the same.
+GODOFHELLFIRE3 Marx did have a point back then. His ideas have far less of a point today.
***** Oh it goes without saying that things are better now, there being the NHS, minimum wage laws, state pension plans, trade unions, etc, etc. Someone in my Romanticism seminar said the same thing; the only problem is that the humanitarian aspect of Marxist philosophy, even though it was more relevant then than now, is still valid in that there is still corporate greed, corruption, and so on and so forth, in places like Dubai especially.
AIek 1O Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?
We are not in Victorian times anymore.
Thank you ever so much for creating this clip. Until now, I only had familiarity with the vocabulary and not a basic understanding of what it means!
Thank you so much! Great teaching, well organized and clear! Greetings from Brazil!
This was the first video that CLEARLY explained Marxism. Thank you!
Shakia Gerald no it didn’t
Look to 3rd world countries and you’ll see the real explanation
This is all smoke and mirrors to polish the turd
I’ve been on mission trips and seen what Marxism does to oppress people and it’s 1000x worse than capitalism
I’ve lived out of my car in America and that’s a better lifestyle than communism
Had to get that off
My chest 🤷🏼♂️
God bless!
@@shaunhadsall The countries that America bombed*
@@ToperPerson like Nicaragua? smh...
Yes, it makes sense but still is an idiot ideology only a child could come up with, reminder, Marx was unemployed his whole life and supported by a capitalist
This video keeps mentioning "equality" as though Marx espoused this as a central tenant of socialism. He didn't.
He understood "equality" as an utterly abstract and meaningless term. Instead preferring the more concrete demand: the emancipation of the working class.
Equality is a good phrase to use didactically. Equal opportunity even better, certainly.
Yes, just like how Marx sees the term "people" as a means of ideological propaganda
Cambridge have you read Marx? I get this faint impression that you have not and what you are writing is solely based on second-hand knowledge. Anyway, thank you for proving the idiocy of those who try to oppose and mock Marx on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
@@clockfixer5049 On Marxism, I have been reading mostly works by Marx and Engels. Although I do plan to read works by other Marxists, like David Harvey, Foucault, Althusser...
Cambridge how come you ended up watching this slipshod piece of utterly pointless work?
such an awesome class. everything was clear as crystal. thank you so much for giving this visualized classroom environment.
Clearest explanation on this topic I’ve seen so far. Thanks
Here trying to understand blm
Same ahaha I'm black but I was just sent a video that they were training marxists so I'm here trying to educate myself lol
Same here.
Same... This looks so good in theory but I have such a bad taste in my mouth when I hear the word Communism. Shouldn't we be really concerned about the direction we are moving?
Same!
Makenzie Demos not sure, but I know I am concerned.
SO HELPFUL! Thanks so much for this!😅
So I came in with an open mind and this is what I gathered
"Business owners have more money than me, that is unfair. I should have more money and they should have less money even though I did nothing to earn it."
Is that a good summary?
you missed the part that education influences ones future status... and the status you were born in. the bourgeosie's offpsring was also bourgeosie. a poor mans offspring will most probably be a poor man.
damn nucklehead.
Megadeth6633 If you're born into a poor family apply yourself. Obviously education is a factor that you missed in Marxism 101 because you don't know how to spell knuckle.
Do explain how what he said was different then?
hieldjiv Business owners need you to work for them, you sell them your Labor, but you only get a small portion of the Capital you have worked to produce, represented in a commodity. this is why in a sweat shop factory for instance you can make clothes all week, but at the end not have enough money to buy one item of clothing you have made. this is obviously a simplification of hundreds of pages of Marx. this is why he thought the system was unfair because the worker did not receive a fair portion of the goods he made. this is because the Capitalist is concerned with profits so he will try to keep wages low. where Marx saw a contraction of capital being is when the worker couldn't afford to buy the goods on the market. One of the ways Marx saw this contradiction as being overcome by the rich is to rack up the credit economy, hence credit and debit cards but this cant go on forever and leads to crisis, this will be solved by new ways of making money but every form of capitalism has a plethora of ways it can and inevitably will fail, ie recessions of 1929, 1973 and the one we are in today. Over time the workers will get so disillusioned there will be a revolution, that in a nutshell is it
hieldjiv apply yourself? you have no notion of psychology and what it depends on.
sorry I misspelled knucklehead, I speak 4 other languages natively. it's hard to be so smart sometimes.
This video is extremely short, so I wanted to present my personal written examination and critique of capitalism, Especially for all the trolls out there who think they are experts on Marx's work or want to misrepresent his work just so they can continue justifying false idealizations of how capitalism operates while ignoring the reality, the history and ultimately the reality of how capitalism operates today.
1.How Capitalism Operates
When many laymen people examine the predominate economic system of capitalism, they interpret it through a limited array of experiences, or the media depiction of capitalism, regardless of how limited the analysis of the media or experience are when discussing capitalism. They will equate capitalism as being merely a market based economy, or 'free-trade', or that its 'free exchange' and therefore 'fair exchange'. These misconceptions are not only misleading, but fail to capture the full reality of capitalism.
Capitalism is not just a system of trading, like what medieval merchants did during the middle ages. Nor is it a system of ancient self sufficiency where the farmers plowed the land collectively for themselves and their community, and where the hunters brought wild game as their contribution, or where the clothes maker and and primitive medicine producers made their contributions and educators theirs. Least of which, it is certainly not a system by which the producers and laborers of society have control over the things they produce, nor, be it material goods or services, nor the production tools that make it possible to produce their goods and services. Even after, all throughout history, all production and all advances leading up to our current 'modern' industrial economy was made possible by their efforts.
Capitalism is a system by which all of production responsible for material goods, such as the factories, the farms and the natural resources are controlled, and anything else that the proletariat working class must utilize to produce their goods and service, are entirely owned by private individuals for the purpose of their own profits. All of Production within an economy is essentially controlled by a class of people, the capitalist class and the major wealthy share holders for the purposes of maximizing their profits, meaning that the economy is designed to work for their interest. How this process functions at a closer, detailed examination, is a frightening tale of how the modern capitalist economy developed, how it functions today, and where it is heading.
The process of the capitalist mode of production starts with the fact that all production necessary for material goods is controlled by private holders and major share-holders of farm land, factories, and natural resources, is once more referred to as the capitalist class. This means that the workers of society that need to make a living, be it doing manual labor itself in the fields, factories and mines, or the services itself that must be supplied by manual labor, must make a living by working for the class of people that actually own all production. There is no other way for these workers to make a living since the means of production and natural resources are not in infinite supply for them to freely access.
*Key point of analysis*: As these workers work to produce goods and services within the capitalist economy, they are paid a wage, however whatever goods and services they used their brains and muscles to produce, is owned by the owners of production, the capitalist class. This class of people sells the final goods and services in the market, at a price they set, whether it is to other members of the capitalist class or directly through consumer retail. As these goods and services are sold in the markets at the price they are set for, the owners of production, being also the owners of whatever was produced, can decide also how to distribute the final proceeds of the products sold. This means that they can choose to give the workers that actually produced the goods and services a tiny fraction of the proceeds of their labor in the form of a wage.
*Put simply, the working class is paid way lower than their labor is actually sold for in the markets, so that the owners of production, the major shareholders and the corporate executives can profit directly off of the labor of the workers under them*, simply because they know that the economic system is inherently structured to serve their interest. There is a very simple term that can be used to describe a system structured where one group of people gets to own and profit off the labor that the workers of society do, and that term is _exploitation_. It is absolutely impossible for capitalism to be a 'non-exploitative' system since the wealth of the capitalist class and the owners of production is inherently derived by how much they can exploit the labor of the working class by minimizing their pay. If the working class actually owned what they produced there could be no capitalism in that, since in such a circumstance, the working class would then be making the decisions on how to distribute the proceeds of their labor, and ultimately control how to produce goods and even what to produce.
+Sokami Mashibe
Conclusion to part one:
The capitalist economic system, being how its structured, is systematically designed and rigged to benefit the interest of the capitalist class that is in charge of production. The main point of its existence, is to ensure the maximum profits of the capitalist class and executives ultimately in control of the system from the top down as the goods and services generated by the working class is sold in the markets. regardless of the inherent direct and indirect consequences this has on the working class, the vast devastation it brings to the environment, The alienation it brings to people and the economy, and the many other extensive social ills it brings to people who are indoctrinated to accept the system as natural, distract themselves from how they feel at work, or who try to justify about how they are being controlled and used in their jobs or even aim to try and be at the top one day. All decisions made from the capitalist class at the top are not done for the benefit of the working class but for their profits. The working class are merely cogs in the machine, whom are from the moment they are born, are to be educated, indoctrinated in the status quo, fed news from corporate owned media sources, for the purpose so that when they go to work they can more efficiently produce a profit for capitalist, as ultimately, across all jobs, we, the working class are hamsters on a wheel. All extreme wealth collected by the capitalist class come from these beloved hamsters that they feed, provide a cage for, and occasionally pet so that when the hamsters go back on the wheel, they can continue to serve their profits all over again, as the capitalist class sells the hamsters goods and services in the markets.
Just like all other class based systems before it, capitalism is inherently hierarchical in the relationship between the capitalist class and the working class. All production is managed from the top-down by the capitalist class in an effort to maximize how much can be extracted from the working class labor, how cost can be cut, even if its detrimental to others, all in an effort to maximize their own profits. The working class has no choice but to be subservient to this relationship if they want to make a living. This type of top-down hierarchical mode of production is not meant to streamline the decision making process so that production can be more useful for the working class, but instead more useful for the interest of the capitalist so that they may milk more from the workers. The working class in their workplaces have no say in the process of how the production they use should be used, even if they are the ones that know how to produce the goods and services. They Do not get to determine what it is they should produce, how they should produce it, and most of all the workers do not even get to distribute the full proceeds generated by their collective labor among themselves. They may depend on their work to make a living, but surely cannot influence it themselves, they are expected to merely be the subservient, conforming, controlled, and used tools for the interest of capital in this inherently hierarchical relationship.
The capitalist economic system, being how its structured, is systematically designed and rigged to benefit the interest of the capitalist class that is in charge of production. The main point of its existence, is to ensure the maximum profits of the capitalist class and executives ultimately in control of the system from the top down as the goods and services generated by the working class is sold in the markets. regardless of the inherent direct and indirect consequences this has on the working class, the vast devastation it brings to the environment, The alienation it brings to people and the economy, and the many other extensive social ills it brings to people who are indoctrinated to accept the system as natural, distract themselves from how they feel at work, or who try to justify about how they are being controlled and used in their jobs or even aim to try and be at the top one day. All decisions made from the capitalist class at the top are not done for the benefit of the working class but for their profits. The working class are merely cogs in the machine, whom are from the moment they are born, are to be educated, indoctrinated in the status quo, fed news from corporate owned media sources, for the purpose so that when they go to work they can more efficiently produce a profit for capitalist, as ultimately, across all jobs, we, the working class are hamsters on a wheel. All extreme wealth collected by the capitalist class come from these beloved hamsters that they feed, provide a cage for, and occasionally pet so that when the hamsters go back on the wheel, they can continue to serve their profits all over again, as the capitalist class sells the hamsters goods and services in the markets.
2. How Capitalism has developed and operates in the world today particularly on a global scale (unfinished)
The way capitalism is structured today has evolved far outside a single nation state. Marx predicted that capitalism would remain domestic and continue to exploit the working class domestically, while colonialism would continue to be the expression of how bourgeois nation-states exploit the outside world, and ultimately feed the domestic system of capitalism. He never predicted that capitalism would expand to the point to become a 'global' system and in effect replace colonialism as a new form of imperialism, raw economic domination of other nations, especially the third world. Modern circumstances have changed. The same mechanics of capitalist exploitation still exist in both the first world and the third world, yet the absolute vast majority of the first world wealth is literally derived from the extreme exploitation of labor and resource extraction in third world nations. The third world production and resources are owned by multinational corporations which pays third-world workers absolutely abysmal wages to mine resources, and produce products for the multi-national corporation. All of these goods and resources gets shipped to the first world, and because they were acquired at an absurdly cheap price, it results in cheap prices in the first world. Not all these goods go straight to retail, but also fuel the whole system of first-world western capitalism. Capitalism is the new form of imperialism. *This means that when first-world workers buy products in western capitalism, they can afford them with their wage since their own exploitation is compensated for by even more extreme exploitation in the third world*. It still has the same systems of extreme exploitation that Marx analyzed before, but its on a more global scale.
+Sokami Mashibe Fantastic analysis man, could not have articulated it better myself.
+Sokami Mashibe
They made some mistakes here.
1) Marxism is not in opposition to capitalism, or anything like that. Marxism
is a theoretical framework used to understand how societies are organised. A
framework that Marx used to study past societies (hence his approach being
historical), and focuses on the material stuff produced, and how the surplus is
divided up (hence his approach being historical materialism).
2) After capitalism there should be socialism, where all goods are owned by all
people communally. Communism is the ultimate mode of production, where all
things are produced by machines, and people do leisure, leisure, leisure. At
least that's the idea. Marx never explained how a communist society would be
organised.
In spite of these (and other smaller) mistakes, the video is not too bad.
+sintetsu2 You mean on the technology that owes its existence to publicly funded research?
+sintetsu2 "device by capitalism". Are you implying the ideology made it or the workers?
This was very simple and easy to understand. Thank you this has helped a lot :)
Equally easy to understand: Marx never worked. He lived completely off his rich capitalist friend, Engels. Yes, Engels was rich. His family owned textile factories in England. Engels liked fox-hunting.
He gave Marx enough money not only to live but to marry and have children, as well as house servants. One servant was a pretty young maid. Shortly after Marx's wife gave birth to their 3rd child, he seduced the young maid and got her pregnant.
When it became known she was pregnant, he feigned moral disgust and fired her immediately. He never acknowledged his daughter, who never knew her father, and he never supported either her or her unfortunate mother. Engels stepped forward to pay for Marx' personal immorality.
This story remained unconfirmed until Engels was ill and close to death, when he finally revealed it. Marx himself had died 12 years earlier.
@@dixonpinfold2582 LOL. Its just a theory how a society will colaspe.
If you are saying "it never worked", then you are an idiot. Please don't post misinformation. It's not an economics plan to execute. It's only a theory of how a society will colaspe.
So. you can say, "the rich will colaspe a society" or " the rich will not colaspe a society".
If a society colaspes because the rich end up owning everything and the workers own nothing. The workers stuck in the rent trap with nothing to own other than a bicycle. You would say, he was right in his theory.
Its just a theory how a society will colaspe.
@@dixonpinfold2582 His work was the canary in the coal mine.
How can you study his WORK, if he never worked? Nor will his theory work of not work. His work is only a theory how a society will colaspe (by the rich).
He had a job. You study his WORK.
His work said, arrest the rich for their crimes against humanity.
His work was the canary in the coal mine.
@@noel7777noel Marx never had a job but devoted his career to making claims about jobs in the shadows of real economists at the time.
@soulcapitalist6204 Marxist has no math to it
Economics terms are math terminology, not psychological. The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.
Math is law. The study of law. Not the study of the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context
Marxist has no math to it.
Do you see the switch-a-roo
That was very helpful! Thank you to "The Curious Classroom"! Everybody, especially, visual learners can really benefit by this short video presentation.
What did you learn from the false information about Marx and Marxism and distorted bogus history?
Rich Graziano Explain your argument! What do you mean?
Eva Benway The history presented in the video is distorted and bogus. Marxism is NOT a theory of anything; it is an idea not a theory; it is a science of fundamental sociopolitical change in order to establish power of a political party by propaganda and political actions and intervention into an established political order to usher in a totalitarian order. Marxism rests on assumptions that are illogical. For example; that men desire to be equal and satisfied with subsistence wages and do not compete to rise above the average. I cannot write a book here but history and economics are two of the major arguments against communism. Communism is the political philosophy that Marxism supports. Marxism is not a form of government or a theory; it is a political action science.
I'm still confused??
Just left Marx and Spencer. I was curious who was Marx.
Thank you for explaining
You didn't introduce the surplus value that created by workers.
yupeng wu: are the operating board, managers, the engineers, the architects, machine designers and those that work in sales, purchasing, logistics, and other college degreed positions A)also workers and B) equal in pay to the guy or gal who drives the forklift?
I appreciate the quality of information you presented with this video! Thank you!
Not mentioned: Children had always worked on farms. Child labour in factories was absolutely nothing new. It had always, always, always been the same. Reserving childhood for education instead of work was a development made possible by regulated capitalism. Capitalism created wealth, wealth made possible the creation of public education.
The only conflict in society is the individual vs the group.
It is up to each person to break away from group thinking
to become a true individual.
That is the most shallow view of society possible. If you want to break away, go into the woods and be an individual. Otherwise we are all in a group called society.
"It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority rule, but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both. This was the great American achievement-and if concern for the actual welfare of other nations were our present leaders’ motive, this is what we should have been teaching the world. "
And not a single philosophical giant preceding us could have envisioned the cancer of industrialization we are living through. The result of fulfilling the rights of the individual.
@@joeporter4920. Climate change!! Lol
@@joedmac78 The oceans are filled with plastic
@@joeporter4920 I know and Japan is fishing the ocean dry.. don't worry gore said we'd be under water 10 years ago..40 years ago.. Now it's what 9 years 12 years ?? I can't keep up
@@joeporter4920 let's go back to glass bottles. Let's stop companies from making everything out of plastic like that useless tile backer bullshit orange stuff.. It's useless.. It's plastic
The best video I have watched so far on Karl's theory
This video is missing several key aspects. One of the biggest is that many of Marx' ideas weren't just "theories" but critical analysis of the patterns of civilizations through a philosophy called Historical Materialism. You really can't understand Marx without understanding materialism and dialectic thinking. Skipping the philosophy of materialism is why many people get so confused about the natural and obvious conclusions that are drawn from it. It would be like trying to understand astrophysics without learning about relativity.
You don't need to be an astrophysicist to understand that it is always *evil* to take by force that which you do not own. Violent revolution of the proletariat in order to seize the means of production is evil.
The most glaring flaw in Marxist theory is believing the communal owners of goods (government) would fairly distribute the goods equally, and never use their positions as authoritarian or oppresively.
Keeping it simple and concise.
Thank you. I have been searching for a good video that explains Marxism. Very well done.
How is it fair things are communially own? You work hard to keep your factory successful while others does nothing. Is that fair? That is why though people own business , many fail. In addition, no everyone who is rich are born with a silver spoon. A lot educate themselves , worked harder, had more perseverance, had the right mindset, and don't complain. They deserve the richness their work resulted in.
nice video. was looking for a simple explanation. Tough im.sure there's one big error. He makes it sound like farmers had it good under feudalism. Peasants were treated terribly in the feudal system. I think kids laboured too. Definitely some bias here.
is there another video explaining marxism? do share
I thought the bourgeoisie were the upper class and proletariat were the lower class
Aristocracy is upper class.
_"It doesn't really matter actually because communism equalizes the classes by making everyone lower class or dead."_
Yeah...that's how the Soviets won the space race. What do Amish huff to get stupid high? Horse shit? It's horse shit, isn't it?
Augusto Pinochet
exactly !!! communism want everybody to be poor !!!!!
@@simplythebest286 They want them to be poor in order for equality, No one higher or lower, the only powerhead is The State
Best video, straight to the point and easy to understand.
"Know your place pleb!"
ROFLMAO. Solid gold. This is probably the cleanest explanation of Marxism ever.
0:34 thats a small but important inaccuracy. Marxism doesn't frame society as in conflict between rich and poor, although there is heavy correlation between the two groups. It views society as in conflict between the class interests of those who sell their work for a living and those who derive their wealth predominantly through property they own. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The worker and the capitalist. The former encompasses some rather wealthy people and the latter a few rather low income folks but in general the concentration of wealth is indeed overwhelmingly in the hands of the latter. This is because, despite what neo-classical economists will tell you, you can't actually make anything with any use value without putting labour into it, sure you can effect supply and demand to make something of little value sell for an extremely high price but the actual use value compared to the raw materials it is made up of, is derived from all the work done to transform the raw materials into the finished product. Thus the capitalist, who wishes to derive wealth from their physical capital or finance capital (physical capital, or as Marx termed it the means of production is the tools/machines/buildings/books/computers/storage space, what ever it is that is needed to perform a production job in a given industry) must either labour themself with the property to produce a product that someone else will buy, in which case their business will remain small and their productivity eclipsed by larger businesses, will likely be forced out of the market or they can pay someone else to work with or on their combined with raw materials to produce the thing they sell. The person they pay is a worker or proletarian, they have the knowledge and/or skills to use the physical capital to create the product the capitalist sells but not the physical capital itself. There are many reasons for this but mainly boil down to lack of funds due to not being born with property rights to anything. The worker is incentivised to maximize their output of pay relative to their input of labour, the capitalist is incentivised to maximize the money they're paid relative to how much they spend. If the capitalist cannot bring in more money than they spend, they will be forced to become a worker as they lose all their property. If the worker cannot maximize the amount their paid relative to the energy they expend in labour, they will fail to pay their costs of living and participating in society. If the capitalist cannot maintain a workers services they must find another worker more willing to tolerate their working conditions or their business will also fail and they will be force to become a worker. However if the worker does not maintain a job they will not receive any pay at all and not be able to pay their costs of living. They will be cold, starving, sick, homeless and then dead. As you can see there is a power imbalance here. Regardless there is a clear conflict of interest between the worker and the capitalist. It is of course rarely as simple as all that but generally speaking this is a true to life albeit simplified model of the conflicting interests at the heart of capitalism.
sometimes i dress up as an owl and sit on a branch waiting for my family to pour orange juice on from the trees. i call it.. owlange juice
This is what marx envisioned, everyone doing what they like. Some sitting on a tree pretending to be an owl wouldve pleased marx... Thats marxism in practice! 😂
Dungeons and dragons is like, evil. It says dungeons in it...
ruclips.net/video/UnkMA0l7Af8/видео.html
People think the bad Fantasy's called Socialism, Communism, Workers Party, Peoples Party, etc.... are separate ideas. Marx conjured up all these fantasies sitting on his fat ass in London. He was a spoiled punk college brat who studied humanities at the university of Bonn. Like kids of today he lived in a socialist fantasy world. He never grew up. he relied on his business pal Engels to support his lazy ass because Marx did not want to work. He came from a
pampered home and ended up so poor his kids died, and his wife went nuts. What a F@CK-IN role model. He was just like the Socialist trained violent punk kids today that set fire to Portland and kill kids and cops. Their brains are filled with bad socialist fantasy's. Zero regard for others, any morals, they just assume kill you because you are not the lazy genius that they are. Marx had not solutions. Look at the F@CK-IN results. The world is a tough place it is never fair. Real solutions to real problems are plenty. Solutions come from free people willing to work and learn real skills. All these socialist games end up in utter disaster from their own incompetent Fantasy's. Freedom requires a lot of fun effort. If you see a full blow radical socialist run like hell and protect yourself. They consider themselves gods full of envy, they rarely do productive work. All they want is to kill you steel your SH*T then kill off their so-called friends. Is not life hard enough we got to babysit these angry birds that want to burn your family so they can feel content. Trump that spurred the best economy and life for African American’s to date is a witch to be burned by these Marxist’s. They spend so much F*CK’N time setting fire to positive solutions the F*CKIN Smoke blocks the view of these absolute positive results. They screw with people who just want the freedom to produce a better world. These Marxist Fantasy's need to be extinguished. Not by violence but though success.
www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx
@@TheConstitutionFirst i feel like you might be slightly againdt communism, dont understand where from tho...
bro I have an essay due at 12am tonight and I don't know shit
@Sleeping Ninjas passed some how 🧍🏽
@Sleeping Ninjas 😂😂
Finally! I understand what maxism is. Thank you
As Ben Shapiro put it: if I was in a room of 3 people with 100 dollars, the other 2 with no money, it's not fair. Hence it should be divided equally irrespective of how hard I earned the money.
"How hard" as if luck plays no role.
Well good thing marx specifically rejected this sort of thing. He wrote a whole book on it.
So basically their setting us up for the hunger games
Yes 😅
huh? our current capitalist system feels like we are already in the hunger games
Hell yeah
Who is "they"? This is a simple video about Marxism for those who have no clue.
@@randomperson9984 move, there's more opportunities elsewhere to help you advance. Complaining will not get you anywhere.
Here for a UNISA literature assignment. Super helpful!
This is a really good explanation. Thank you :)
The concept of marxism and humanism is so badass. I really regret not paying any attention in governmentclass in highschool.
Humanism is very, very compatible with free enterprise.
People who say "communism sounds good on paper".
Are you silly? Just imagine yourself, trying to explain to an Indian chef that they should give their farms to one persons, who will own all of the corns and make others harvest them for him paying them with papers. It's not that easy to change the society at once.
Well you just explained capitalism, isnt that fun!
@@Cyborg_Lenin no, he didn't. Because in capitalism, nobody just takes something unlike in communism, where you just take and divide everything and then never create anything new. it's why literally every communist country has failed over and over again - because they stagnate and surprisingly, nobody wants to work when there is no incentive to work. there is literally nothing stopping from 2000 people taking out a loan together and opening up a business except no 2000 people will agree on how to run a factory and who gets to do what because surprisingly, worse and better jobs still exist so complete equality is just unobtainable.
@@Cyborg_Lenin I understand that you're lenin, but how is that capitalism? You are really lenin. stupid as it gets. Do I have to tell you how many people were killed in my country because that stupidity and to get from capitalism to communism?
Why do people think that equality is possible under any system? Has anyone heard of the Pareto Principle? The question is which system produces the MOST wealth. I'd rather live comfortably in an unequal society than live in a society where everyone is equal at 0. (except, of course, those who purport to be leaders fighting on our behalf, who will end up with all the wealth, as juxtaposed to capitalists who create and organize enterprises having the wealth).
It seems as though people believe those with wealth did not earn it, which isn't a new idea at all, it's a very old idea and the sequence of actions following this dogma have left enough bodies rotting in the streets. Encourage people to build for themselves instead of taking from others.
Labour is entitled to all it creates. It's ironic you saying 'Encourage people to build for themselves instead of taking from others' when capitalists really did not earn their wealth. The wealth of human labour and production is currently benefited by with unequal and unearned distribution of currency as a means to access those goods. Goods are produced and consumed in deliberate patterns that feed back and recycle this social aim of social stratification and production for profit rather than production for need. Propaganda and social construction presents this world and self-preserving world view as the most natural - that by mere birthright some are above others and deserve lavish exuberance while those that actually make it possible grovel in turmoil. Nothing about humans is natural, but capitalism especially is not only unnatural but irrational. It is the task of the international proletariat to overcome this well established and historically vital but outdated and permeable milestone of capitalism and go forth into a new stage in economic development. Any violence that is met in the revolution is the result of the hostage-keepers of the earths resources and labour-power in their reluctance to surrender hegemonic control of the earth's environment and society
Diseases make more money getting treated rather than prevented. Wars make more money getting continuously fought rather than prepared for. Capitalism keeps greed and stability for the capitalists by suppressing voices or real world examples that explain or succeed its historical temporality.
@@CraigWazHere No but the labor didn't create anything, remember wage earners just show up to work the tools and the buildings and the capital are already there. That wealth had to be created first.
Labor is valuable, that's why when you sell your labor you receive purchasing power in return.
Labor isn't creating wealth the laborers are just the principal beneficiaries of the wealth that's already been created.
As for the proletariat, yeah, how did the USSR turn out again? The murderous ideology of collectivism is responsible for how many lives now? On what level are you a member of the bourgeoisie. Should you pay for your status? The revolution might end up pointing its gun at you.
@@historynut3460 labour creates everything. Those tools, buildings and capital you mention have a long heritage of identical and then gradually less advanced tools, tracing back to the very moments in our evolution where we learnt to use tools, or where God laboured to create the universe if you so please. The history of people on this planet is the history of us discovering useful natural materials and labouring on them, re purposing them to our needs. We have spent much of our development living in collectives through the mere necessity of survival, and we never really fully remove ourselves of the need for survival especially in the uncertain future. So, long will the nagging reality of the need for collectivism continue. The historical shift where the parasitic class came in is described as 'primitive accumulation' and describes dark periods in history such as land clearances and the end of cottage industry, and the general castration of the ability of communities to be self sufficient, instead having to sell their labour to buy the necessities of survival. With that said, the development of capitalism was essential for technological progress and population growth to continue accelerating upwards, it's just now in its overripe and planet-bursting stages.
Labour being the 'principal beneficiaries' of wealth created isn't right at all. Bosses receive the lions share of the benefits of their worker's labour and depending on the pressure placed on them, by for example threat of a striking workforce which could crash it all down, will reimburse the workers with whatever quantity he decides is fit to keep them off his back. He might pay them well or he might pay them just enough to subsist and drag themselves into work the next day, it's up to the boss.
The USSR turned out horribly but is best described as state-capitalism. There are hundreds of valid reasons why Marxists don't feel guilty for its popular association with our ideas, demonstrating how Stalin diverged from them or why the conditions in these countries wasn't ready for anything beyond the initial development of capitalism - Marx expected advanced economies like Britain or Germany to spark the first emergences of proletarian rule. The revolution should be international to tackle the international economy of capitalism.
I don't fear for revolution because I have know that in difficult times, people pull together and our strength is with eachother. I would take sympathy towards any of the capitalist class who find themselves under threat of violence in the event of revolution (with exceptions) as the system isn't propped up by any individuals and we all play our part in it, it's what we can build going forward that matters. It's fair that we have these conversations about the deaths of so-called communist experiments but if you want me to begin talking about the harm caused by capitalism/imperialism/colonialism it'll be a long conversation.
HyacinthHouse so the forklift driven by a laborer just popped into existence because there were others before it? Got it, they just evolve like animals. As the other fella said, the laborer shows up to work in a building designed by an architect, electrical engineer, and financed by risk takers. Pretty good deal for that laborer, especially those in capital intensive businesses as the cost of labor becomes less and less a % of total costs allowing the laborer more leverage to ask for raises. The best deal pursued by many laborers is to increase their skills and value thru specialized training, at which point they no longer identify with the unskilled laborer.
@@patricktcrowe Just ignore him it's impossible to lay it out clear enough. Haha
Marx was brilliant in understanding capitalism. Unfortunately he underestimated the difficulties to establish a happy and functioning socialistic society. Would be great to hear his comments on the soviet union.
As Capitalisum & Communisum are the two extremes of theroies of control is there a middle ground we can get behind ?
Do we have to live with either or ?
They're called Liberals/Social Democrats. People who believe that capitalism can be reformed. Those who understand the true nature of capitalism knows that its demise is inevitable.
Capitalism works in theory but not in practice.
*Every political ideology is mind creating other mind*. If people just knew that the mind is not the key to true equality, because the nature of the mind is to conquer, to seek pleasure to strive for always more, more power, money, enz.. Politics are meant to enslave people. Just accept that in a society people are to divided to agree. That is why it is important to change your view on life and rethink your political ideology, or better just drop it. Change your view according to the *Truth of Life* ( best explanation of the big picture of life). It will change your view on life in the best way possible, it is thekey to true justice, equality and peace. Google *TruthContest read the Present*
No-mind is the key..
The interests of the worker are the interests of the proletariat.
Pathetic Nietzschean bullshit.
"The nature of the mind is to conquer, to seek pleasure, to strive for always more, more power, money..." How would altruism be explained then? This statement seems to be conflating the *typical* mind under *capitalist culture*, which is quite hedonistic, with the human mind *in general*, which can be hedonistic, but can also be altruistic, based on what sort of environment it's raised in and what sort of experiences it has.
I just finished listening to the communist manifesto and marx did not say anything about believing they should be communally owned businesses, he said state owned. That’s dangerous. It drives me nuts that people hang onto these theories and ideas and completely forget about the human spirit. It’s only natural to want to strive to be and do better, whether that means to be a better person, work harder or be a better provider for yourself and your family.
Marx did not argue for a state controlled economy. Workers would own the means of production, not capitalists not government - the workers
Apparently you didnt read well enough.
What we have is corporate fascism & crony capitalism, not the originally intended Laizzes-Faire free market capitalism.
I felt it ended without a conclusion. Even though it is only an introduction, it needs a conclusion to these opinions.
I don't see the part where trained marxists requires multiple mansions like the BLM founders. Also where does the clamor for free stuff come in? Sounds like originally they wanted a job.
How Marxism Destroys All Human Pursuits: Aravindan Neelakandan [ English subtitles also ]
ruclips.net/video/HyA9YGhBjj0/видео.html
Thanks for doing my economics project for me :DDD
Expliotation!
Most of the issues people have with capitalism can usually be blamed on government intervention. Capitalism itself involved consensual trade and things of that nature, you're not exploiting someone when you provide them with a product and they provide you with money, its mutually beneficial. Capitalism has helped make everyone richer, even the poor are richer than they would of been years ago. Wealth can be created, its not like there is one pie and people are taking too much of it, more people are creating multiple pubs and taking a share of theirs and giving the rest to the public as seen by big companies and small companies.
It is exploitation though. You have 3 options:
#1. Be a worker, be exploited, have some money
#2. Don’t be a worker, don’t be exploited, don’t have any money
#3. Be the capitalist, exploit others, have lots of money
A phrase from Cuba: if socialism was put in place in the Sahara Desert, in a short period of time there would be no sand.
I looked up "Marx" the Kirby character and this showed up
Actually, the bourgeoise are the wealth ruling class; what we would consider "upper class" or "the 1%" in America. Proletariats are middle and lower class.
The middle class are split between the petite bourgeoisie and the working class. You cannot ascribe any percentage to the bourgeoisie: it's not defined that way.
It's a good thing that children were never exploited for their labor under feudalism and the ancient agrarian economics.
Yeah they just had to work in the fields dusk to dawn for their king in exchange for tiny morsels of bread, never able to climb out of the position they were in.
I'm subscribing purely based on how beautiful this presentation is. Thank you.
Here’s the problem, plain and simple, democratic capitalism, which we have here, means you have the choice to work and earn capital by which any means you like. In socialism and communism, you do not have choice.
Really good explanation. It was very useful
and, yes , you are an amazing artist.
Great and Simple explanation.. well done .. Brief, Precise and Concise...!
Learning about MLA formatting using this video. My English teacher approves.
Is this some kind of joke? This video explains nothing of marxism. Forces of production, relations of production, modes of production, base, superstructure, use/surplus value? None of these key marxist terms are used
A brief introduction??
That is why Marxists ruined economy wherever they go
Imagine at working in a factory for 10 to 12 hours moving on a conveyor belt non stop.
In america they have the immigrants doing it and they love it cuz what they are use to in they country is nothing but not knowing it is wrong cuz they are just getting corporations richer and they are barely making it.
@@abrakadabra9033 they're happy with whatever they can get because it goes back to feed their families. If they didn't like it they would not keep coming to America. They know how the system works and that doesn't deter them at all from coming to the US.
@@CumminsCat I understand
@@abrakadabra9033 immigrants are actually working harder than Americans therefore putting Americans out of work and they're steadily bringing in more profits as they excel in skills. Many Americans have become complacent and lazy in their careers allowing immigrants to surpass them. They complain after the fact that immigration is a bad thing taking American jobs only because they're too sorry to get up and do anything about it. In my occupation for the last 5 years it has been tough to find anyone who wants to do seasonal work that could lead to a full time position with more pay. People want high wages but they do not want to put in the work/time to get it.
@@CumminsCat you DNT have to explain it to me. I'm one of them.
It's true that education and personal development is key to equality. But in my observation, being a founder of an idealistic educational institution, so far, in my 2 years of experience. Equality is not the end goal. Equality is just a way to level things, to make space for new things. The raw truth imo is that there's nothing out there but what you perceive, create, build, and discover for yourself. The whole system is self-explanatory. A system as a whole. You exist in a system where the system allows certain things and limits another. But we'll see, as I observe more from this existence. I'll get back to this post and update this way of thinking someday.
You’re writing is absolutely beautiful, I wish mine was that nice
This is the most articulate lecture i have experienced so far..please make more video
From ploughing through "Capital" I gain the impression that the kind of world he had in mind was one of self employed artisans freely exchanging labour with one another . His argument being essentially that labour ("power") is just as much a commodity as any other and the set up has been skewed from two people on an equal basis to one person degrading the other to generate more money for himself. A lot of volume one denounces the advent of machinery and the degredation of weavers by having them collectivised in factories to generate profits for others, its actually quite luddite at times.
Its pretty out of touch with the realities of actual, genuine working class life and experience and the book itself is pretty impenetrable to all but bourgeois economists. I think the fact Marx believed that a newspaper serialisation would help spread the word among the proles just shows he was on a totally different planet.
His conflict theory derived from Hegel and the whole system would depend on everybody being equally aware of that philosopher's ideology. Given that formal state education was in its infancy at the time he was writing and that most of his intended audience were practically illiterate, it merely resolves itself into just another form of bourgeois dictatorship with proles being told what to think and how to think it by bourgeois ubermenschen as with religion.
Little wonder most of the "revolutionaries" like Lenin, Castro, Trotsky etc came from upper class backgrounds and little wonder that it all dissolved into shit/ another form of oppression.
Henry Mayhew and Arthur Morrison's works show prole life as it was. Become familiar with them and you see this nonsense for what it is.
"Capital" is a useful work for analysing the nature of capitalism but revolutions based on ideas concerning commodity trading and the three circulating facets of capital? Just bourgeois projections by over ambitious wankers who can't wait to plug their bank accounts into the collectivised labour of the whole of the peasantry.
Great handwriting. It's not mentioned that Marx was supported by NYC bankers and other capitalists.
How Marxism Destroys All Human Pursuits: Aravindan Neelakandan [ English subtitles also ]
ruclips.net/video/HyA9YGhBjj0/видео.html
The original and raw cause of conflict , is not between the poor and the rich.
"The competition"
so everyone is equally poor.....except for the ruling class
No, all classes are equal
@@tungumal1584 so the baker at the bakery makes the same as the production manager at the aircraft plant....and the marxit leader of Marxist state has the same financial power as the baker too...tell me another lie
@Recon Drone, no, there is no leader, why not try libertarian communism. A truly self functioning society
@@tungumal1584 show me one nation run like that...and who the leader is... I'll wait
@@tungumal1584 so the baker and the engineer designing a passanger jet eat cabbage in the same soup bowl...the engineer would love that after 8 years of college while the baker took cooking lessions on the web watching RUclips vids
Karl Marx was a true radical liberal in a philosophical sense(not in an economical way). Not small portions of people around the world get the wrong impression of Marxism because no one really teaches the very essence of the idea. It's all about stepping forward to real equality of human beings.
I'm glad that my humanities professor recommended me this video!
This was extremely helpful! Thanks!
Yes, Marxism is a political and economic philosophy that deals with the disparity in a social power structure. This notion is based on Karl Marx(1818-83)which was supported by Frederich Engels. Precisely explained .thank you!!
he wanted dictatoship
@@Moodboard39 He did not.
jesus christ. thanks for all your comments, i now understand that it's a good video and you learnt a lot. but what's your opinion?
There is a way Communism could work. You must eliminate the need for human labor. Automaton robot slaves might be the answer. People can then go about their business of enjoying life and pursuing non-laborous activities. Otherwise, I just can't see it happening.
Zeitgeist?
Your misunderstanding comes from years of ruling class propaganda that oversimplifies and distorts original words of Marx.
danielc1112 I base it on reality as well, looking at countries and societies that have adopted Marx's teachings.
Maybe you can state it better than the propaganda I have heard from my masters? Why would it work inspite humanities laziness and streak for exploitation?
There is a group of proponents of just that position, called Automation Socialism. Based on current trends of automation, their ideology may gain a great deal of support as more automation leads to increasing unemployment.
***** " If human laziness is universal and no one would work in communism," --As has been self evident in all failed/failing communist countries. Why were they all short on food, low on technology and standard of living? Once China adopted a more capiltalistic approach they prospered, look at where they are now. The same can be said of Sweden.
You have a total misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism rewards those who devise the best product/service in the most efficient way possible. The consumers are winners as well as the producers. Perhaps you are thinking of feudalism/serfdom, something capitalism freed us from.
Over-regulated capitalism is what is hurting us today. You must find the distinction.
That educative lesson is beautiful.
What are your thoughts on ESOPs? Is this just capitalism with the employees who happen to own company stock or is this what Marx had in mind and/or consistent with his ideology?
Its not consistent because it still operates under a profit motive and thus requires cutting down wages as low as possible. A company owned and run by workers will always loose under capitalism to a company where a capitalist runs their workers into the grave.
Can anyone recommend any good videos that accurately explain the Marxist and capitalist ideologies???
"Some call it Communism, others call it Marxism. I call it Judaism." - Taylor Swift
Is this an actual quote by Taylor swift? I wasn't able to find it online... Just doing my research. 🤗
ruclips.net/video/UnkMA0l7Af8/видео.html
People think the bad Fantasy's called Socialism, Communism, Workers Party, Peoples Party, etc.... are separate ideas. Marx conjured up all these fantasies sitting on his fat ass in London. He was a spoiled punk college brat who studied humanities at the university of Bonn. Like kids of today he lived in a socialist fantasy world. He never grew up. he relied on his business pal Engels to support his lazy ass because Marx did not want to work. He came from a
pampered home and ended up so poor his kids died, and his wife went nuts. What a F@CK-IN role model. He was just like the Socialist trained violent punk kids today that set fire to Portland and kill kids and cops. Their brains are filled with bad socialist fantasy's. Zero regard for others, any morals, they just assume kill you because you are not the lazy genius that they are. Marx had not solutions. Look at the F@CK-IN results. The world is a tough place it is never fair. Real solutions to real problems are plenty. Solutions come from free people willing to work and learn real skills. All these socialist games end up in utter disaster from their own incompetent Fantasy's. Freedom requires a lot of fun effort. If you see a full blow radical socialist run like hell and protect yourself. They consider themselves gods full of envy, they rarely do productive work. All they want is to kill you steel your SH*T then kill off their so-called friends. Is not life hard enough we got to babysit these angry birds that want to burn your family so they can feel content. Trump that spurred the best economy and life for African American’s to date is a witch to be burned by these Marxist’s. They spend so much F*CK’N time setting fire to positive solutions the F*CKIN Smoke blocks the view of these absolute positive results. They screw with people who just want the freedom to produce a better world. These Marxist Fantasy's need to be extinguished. Not by violence but though success.
www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx
This just blew my mind
I've been wrong about communism this whole time
The problem with now adays communism is that, its an excuse for political terror. Karl marx's name has been dragged in the mud and remembered as an evil cruel world veiw.
I don't agree with everything karl marx says, but I agree more with him than I do with captalism. You have this system in America where the poor is forgotten about and the rich praised. If anything at all, what karl marx was trying to achive was probably what scandinavia is today.
henr360a I live in Sweden and It’s a shit hole now, mass immigration has destroyed this country and our whole system is probably gonna colapse soon. Pretty sure he didn’t want that
Lucas Bevins Social democracy in Sweden fucked up the country
For us, in the west it is. But for the indians, working 12 hours a day, 6 days a week and get paid less than 2 dollars an hour it isnt
Lucas Bevins Sweden is thriving? Old people are getting homeless, unemployment is growing, taxes are getting bigger and bigger while they are not even putting money on things we need, our hospitals are a joke, they have no equiment they can’t even test people if they have Corona... the whole system is a joke and social democracy destroyed Sweden
This might be stupid. But I’m still not totally sure as to what exactly the difference is between Marxism and Comminism.
This used alot of words and said nothing except people couldnt own land, couldnt farm anything, and children had to work for factories...how is this applicable today?
Psychology and realistically there is going to be someone that has to manage the commune. Otherwise who is going to take responsibility? And then that manager is going to have more responsibility than the rest of the individuals in the commune and thus the scales tip. No one is treated fairly and equally because the manager has a bigger role ensuring everyone is treated and working equally. And now you have just entered out of communism and into the world of crony capitalism.
Big difference between crony capitalism and true capitalism. Its the crony capitalism(big business) that emeded itself within communism. And causes a bigger disparity between the classes. In the actual concept of Marxism it doesnt matter that Karl viewed it in a positive light. the core premise is rooted in communism. While you want your freedoms and demand your freedom you will end up believing voting for people who restrict your freedoms( in the long term). You end up funding bigger government and they end restricting your ability to live as an individual.
True capitalism is business owners opening up small business mom and pop shops employing family and friends and people within the community and thus growing the community in a positive direction.
Jeff Bezos has destroyed mom and pop shops- hes a democrat
Warren Buffet owns most of american business- hes a democrat
George soros- commited insider trading, and financial fraud and was banned from certain parts of the world. And is on of the richest men in the country... He too is democrat and supports antifa.
Stalin and Mao(2 biggest murderers in human history) are both what Communists really turned out to be , and while that is similar to Marxism there are key differences