Thanks for this... I managed to piece much of this together on my own, after some digging into the literature (specifically, that "personal possessions" are not the same thing as "private property)." but it's nice to have someone informed who can set the record straight. Good to hear Dr. Laymans dulcet tones, his channel(s) have been pretty quiet.
My only criticism of this video is that, as it’s target audience appears to be people new to the left, saying that collective ownership is akin to your relationship with your housemates may cause some new leftists to assume a largely or entirely informal system like you might have with a housemate, which could reinforce the claim that “without capitalism nobody would ever do any labor”. Of course, you did preface that statement with the note that this is in the case of a fully socialist society, wherein the amount of labor actually necessary could potentially be small, but that new leftist probably wouldn’t key into that, as they likely have little to no knowledge of the progression of capitalism to DotP and beyond. But overall, excellent explanation of marxism that other than this small point seems clear enough for even someone with no knowledge of Marxism at all to get a good understanding.
@@Artifex_Prudens UBI isn't the only way to accomplish that, and that also assumes the preservation of a fiat currency, but yeah the gist of that is true
I’m new to Marxist ideas, and am trying to do a bit of research as I’m part of the American working class, and I can see the growing gap between working class folks and the wealthy in this country. The private property concepts are what trips me up a bit. Maybe it’s hard to think outside of the box that I live within, but without private property, what do people really have to work towards? Perhaps my own viewpoint is once again tarnished, because my passion in life is music/being a musician. Every labor job I’ve had has simply been there to pay my bills/save up for things, etc. Now to my understanding there is a difference between personal possessions and private property, but I guess my ultimate question is: if everything is communally owned, then what would people really have a desire to work for? I suppose the desire of “having a purpose” is a natural motivator of sorts, but it’s hard for me to believe that the massive number of professions in the world could really be passion-driven. Maybe the idea is that people should generally work less? I certainly would be a lot happier without a 40-hr work week.
@@tylerblake3596 Assuming that we never progress past a labor scarce system, which we can't assume probably but for sake of argument I will, you are guaranteed your human rights (food, shelter, transportation, healthcare, in todays world arguably internet, etcetera) which you do not need to work for, but you have to work for your luxuries. This does mean there is less incentive to work, but there is still plenty without anyone being forced to work or starve. You still work towards personal property, too. A house might be guaranteed, but you might work for everything else you own, or maybe a better house. Most people I think are very willing to work for more than just the right to live, but also if you are willing to live a spartan lifestyle that doesn't cost that much to society it is probably okay to let you live a fine life without working in my opinion. Plus, if people worked just a little less, it would likely not impact net productivity by all that much as you start to get diminishing returns per hour of labor above 30 hours a week from the studies I have read, and it would likely reduce stress a lot and thus increase public health and lifespans to an extent, all that seems like a pretty good tradeoff for a pretty small sacrifice in productivity (and I would argue that sacrafice may well be vastly outscaled by the productivity advantages of a non market system over a market one, assuming a given level of starting capital at the time of transition away from markets).
@@Nosirrbro I am reminded of the story of the grasshopper and the ant. The world does not owe you a living. And _somebody_ has to work to get that food to your table. All those things you feel entitled to -- require work. How much work, and what type, has changed over hundreds of thousands of years. But the mandate of "work or starve" has remained throughout.
Fabulous video. Very clear and accurate. A useful distinction is to call property that is only useful to you (like your toothbrush) "personal property," while property you "own" under capitalism that is used for profit (like a farm or factory) "private property."
@Tyler Fox Quite right. Social property is owned by and paid for by all: highways, water systems, most airports, stadiums, public schools, parks, fire departments, and so on. Also the punitive (and largely unnecessary) kind: prisons, police, the military, and so on.
"A useful [lie] is to call property that is only useful to you (like your toothbrush) 'personal property,' while property you 'own' under capitalism that is used for profit (like a farm or factory) 'private property.'" Fixed it for you. Almost anything can be used as a "means of production" if you are so inclined. "Also the punitive (and largely unnecessary) kind: prisons, police, the military, and so on." Every communist country decides those things are very necessary to subdue capitalists.
@@Xexizy by my TA! I'm sure it went through the professor though. We had to explain Marx's theory in relation to property rights :)! Your video acc helped me a lot.
A hollywood film from the 90's comes to mind called 'Sneakers' starring Robert Redford and Ben Kingsley as two people who were part the 1968 alternative movement. But then went there separate ways: one to become a highly successful coporate figure in the silicon valley world of high tech, while the other went underground as a hacker against the system. Both figures clashing when a device that appears to be able to break any form of encryption appears and raises old questions about freedom again.
imho I thought this was good and different. Nice to get into a little detail about the transition from feudalism to capitalism. I think it makes sense that by specialising work you can be collectively be more productive - i.e. the transition to a production line approach (I studied engineering). However, specialising leads to parallel or series approaches rather than an integrated approach - it creates a zombiefied production process... and leads to a blind dictatorial set up in the factories and businesses that us it.
Hoping this can eventually lead into talking about how free association and abolition of IP can actually ake production to new heights in a way that is quantitatively different tho.
Perfect analogy for Socialism! It's like living with your housemates... If no one does the dishes, you kill them! Amazing video! Thank you for making it clear how ridiculous this ideology is!
There have only been two real world experiments where a single society was split into a more socialist half and a more capitalist half. Those are East/West Germany and North/South Korea. Both experiments resulted in economic and humanitarian disaster for the unfortunate souls who found themselves on the socialist side.
@@BigHomieSteveTheMetalHead I can't commit financial suicide, the change must come either from the top down, or all at once, but can't perpetuate this fantasy, it's destroying that which we depend on.
@@rappar9673 then you shouldn't be supporting this ideology, because the state is who will dictate what property you can and can't have and your freedoms will be under strict control. Are you aware of what has happened in every country who has tried this?
I really liked the stylish art of the video and concise presentation. Great work. My only criticism is that the background music is a tad too loud and can sometimes be a bit distracting.
Capitalism was never really about currency at all, it's about private ownership as a means of generating profit and thus more private ownership. Currency is just the quantitative means to expand private ownership ever outward until it encompasses everything. I wish people who hated marxism would do the work of actually researching it to hate it properly. That's what I did and it's why I became a marxist.
"Private property is essentially dictatorial but also cooperatives are private property." Because employment and "ownership restricted to a select group of people"? You said that the democratic control under communism is limited to the workers of the means of production. How is ownership not restricted if the democratic control is? Can the housemates not kick someone out? Is that not a form of restricting ownership?
The workers in reality are SAID to be represented by the party of the proletariat. Which means by the communist party. Good luck! We know what that means.
3:40: Another interesting point to make is that the lords frequently owned things like plows, plow-teams, mills, etc, which were important to agriculture but too expensive for individual serfs. (Though sometimes a village of serfs would collectively own a plow-team/mill/etc.) acoup.blog/2020/07/31/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-ii-big-farms/
Wouldn't a tooth brush be considered personal property in the first place and not private property? The whole metaphor falls apart for me since I can't make this work in my head.
it is, the FACTORY is private property. when it comes to referring to social property that is. the toothbrush is private property, without a social role ergo personal property
@@Xexizy content was great however I would change some of the language for people who don't have a basic understanding of theory. For example. Property relations, the explanation come across a bit academic and abstract. That's it, overall I love the contant keep up the good work
**On the events in Belarus** What is going on in Belarus is not a “maidan”, it’s a democratic revolution. The main moving force of this revolution, its backbone, is the working class of Belarus. Whether this democratic revolution will win or get defeated by the counter-revolution (presented by the yet not overthrown clan of oligarchs led by Lukashenko or presented by the so-called “opposition” reflecting the interests of other groups of the largest capitalist monopolies, including foreign ones), we do not know yet - it will depend on the ratio of the class power in Belarus, on the actions of the classes participating in the revolution, on the working class, on its awareness, cohesiveness and organization. The democratic revolution in Belarus is not yet going beyond the bourgeois framework and is not seeking to change the social structure radically (to replace the capitalist way of production with the communist way of production), which means that, in its content, this is a bourgeois-democratic, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist revolution. But due to the objective laws of social development, if the leadership (the hegemony) of the working class remains, if the latter manages to coalesce into its class political party of the Bolshevik variety and unite all working folk of Belorussia around itself, this revolution will have every chance to grow into a socialist revolution. Read further work-way.com/en/2020/09/03/on-the-events-in-belarus/
I feel like this didn’t quite answer my question? Maybe I came in a bit different from others though. I knew the difference between obviously personal property and obviously private property (toothbrush vs factory). But I don’t feel like this gave my a clear idea of a dividing line or if there even is one definitionally. Things like a t-shirt press or glass blowing kiln or wood workshop with are privately owned and operated but produce goods for public consumption; our economy would not function without these, so they are unquestionably a part of the means of production. Rather than decentralizing power I think we’ve seen time and again that the means of production which will be seized first are those that are most vulnerable: that is, private property owned by people who aren’t rich enough for the police to care about.
The toothbrush and the toothbrush factory made for a clear distinction. But what about something more dicey like housing? Would that be personal or social property?
@Pack -A- Punch Ok, so a person can own a piece of land with a house on it. Like 100-200 square meters of land. But larger pieces of land or a larger building with apartments in it, that is owned collectively? Would it be possible to own an apartment in a building?
If i own a company and I build it from the ground up, I buy the machines, I buy the materials for production, and I compensate the workers. Then i 100% am entitled to the machines that I purchased as my own private property. Im not going build a business to benefit society 99% of businesses dont, and the only reason I would have employees would be because I physically cannot operate 20 or 30 machines in a factory simultaneously, if I could, than there would be no need for the employees.
What I'm wondering is this: for places where communities are difficult to define (especially in cities with suburbs that sprawl into one another) how could one figure out which means of production belong to whom?
That's the main problem. You are basically asking, to whom all the productive thing will belong. Considering it is a communitie, it's reasonable to expect a election, which always brings the same results as today's governmental election... bad people in power... That's my view on the matter.
@@diggydumbo9294 Socialist democracy is different to liberal democracy. If you apply Socialist democracy to the workplace, the CEO’s of the workplace would be elected by his employees and could be voted out of his position if he abuses it or is incompetent, he isn’t there for 4 years, there’s no time limit, he could stay until he dies, but if he fucks up he’s gone.
@@GringoBrasileiro2022Exactly. As soon as the workers decide they want them gone, they will be ousted. We will not give that person a monopoly on violence. So if they want to fuck around, they will be found out.
Love it. I am of the "worker self-directed enterprise" interpretation of Marx, but see how that needs to then be coupled with truly democratic state-planning and even less worker-coop "private ownership", so as to keep things even more fairly distributed. However, how can we both design and implement such a large scale economy without uncomfortable amounts of force by potentially questionable individuals? I assume you are advocating for anarchy basically? Or essentially everything would be publicly owned and we would all essentially become government employees like teachers, firefighters, police, etc...? I am struggling to wrap my head around even worker-coops still being too much private ownership and how we could do even better.
There are other motives besides the profit motive. Just look at small business owners for instance, who list their #1 motivation being personal achievement and self-worth through self-management; the next motivation is financial security (not necessarily profit). This idea of [workers'] self-management is a major tenet of socialism/communism and why the abolition of private property (and thus the capitalist class) is necessary to achieve it.
Good video but i disagree, Capitalism is natural to humanity, some produce something and sell it for something other person produced, it doesn’t make sense to me why should a person with the capital to invest and take the risk to open a factory or any kind of industry is going to do it if the state is just going to steal it from him and if the state wants to tax him out of existence then why would he stay in the jurisdiction? And if they leave or disappear are all the expenses of the state going to fall into the taxation of the middle and low class?
Those are my question, honestly i believe capitalism is like a hammer and socialism is like a screwdriver they are different tools for different problems.
Please read some history regarding the primitive accumulation process in the 16-19th century (mostly about forced confiscation, slave trade and genocidal practices) and then again try to justify private accumulation of capital as "human nature". Production and exchange is not what defines capitalism, hiring wage labor for profit due to the concentration of private ownership of means of production into a tiny portion of the population is. A capitalist only risks losing his investment, yet his workers will risk losing their entire livelihood. Who takes a bigger risk? Historically, state power is established to maintain private ownership of means of production by justifying violence against anyone trying to disrupt the relation without recognized compensation. A socialist state will work in the opposite way by abolishing the right to privately own means of production and maintaining this status. Stealing in socialist terms will therefore be defined as confiscating collectively owned means of production into private hands, together with shifting ownership of personal property without compensation. There will never be any taxation of capitalists in a socialist society, since capitalists should not even exist in a socialist society in the first place. All means of production are already collectively owned.
Anthony Scalia (u.s Supreme Court judge) said that the Soviet Union had a superior bill of rights compared to the United States when it comes to have many rights are given to the people. But they did not have the constitution/government to protect those rights. This is the main question of your ideology. Can an absolute government even with democratic choice protect the individual, generations past its conception. If we are to examine enlightenment principles. The answer would be no. Even a group of workers controlling everything is a powder keg for tyranny. Why should I trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away.
Hmm, peasants rounded up by police to work for industry? I'd like to see more information on when/where this happened. Maybe in Soviet Russia or Ukraine.
I wish I could ask you a complex question regarding operating a self sustaining farm in an ideal socialist society. This is one of the only areas where I can’t reconcile socialist principles with my own. Would a land owner, such as myself, have his mode of living drastically changed if placed in a social, de-commodified, marketplace?
The ownership of means of production in Co-ops within contemporary capitalist society is still exclusive to the workers who actually work in it, and profit motive is still the dominant force driving the production process. Co-ops could be useful in the transitional period, but the end goal is still the expanding the ownership (i,e. the right of decision making on how to deal with the means of productions) to the entire community (producer and consumers alike), letting social need be the real driving force of the production process, instead of profit.
Acc to Marx, in communism everyone can take what they need. But that requires the "new" human being with a "communist mind" who would put the whole above himself or herself and not take excessively or even work without incentives. They are still waiting for this new communist human being. Without this new communist human being there is per definition no communism. The problem is only, that people do not become less selfish just because everything belongs to the state. If there are no incentives, people dodge work. External changes do not change human beings. Why should they? The big error is to think that human beings change or become better just because the means of production belong to the state. Yes, they changed, but became more selfish and superficial, losing their spirituality in many cases. Externally seen, they often behave like mere matter or a lump of meat. But nevertheless, they still have a spirit that simply needs to be revived. And for this to happen we need a revolution of true love, centering on God, not just some violent overthrow of society, based on hatred and greed. Marxism is simply an evil ideology based on hatred. How can that create an ideal society? An ideal society comes from the ideology of true love centering on God's love.
I'm really happy with how this came out
amazing work on the animation
Looks great!
Is that vaush doing a reading of marx?
That first quote I was like, "Is that Vaush speaking to me?"
Yep. Silky...
I came
i puked
WAIT WHAT AHAHAHA I just came here after V recommended Xexizy, I didn't know V did voice lines for him!
Yeah I wqs like is that vowsh?! Nice.
Thanks for this... I managed to piece much of this together on my own, after some digging into the literature (specifically, that "personal possessions" are not the same thing as "private property)." but it's nice to have someone informed who can set the record straight.
Good to hear Dr. Laymans dulcet tones, his channel(s) have been pretty quiet.
the toothbrush is personal property.
Vaush reading theory.mp4
My only criticism of this video is that, as it’s target audience appears to be people new to the left, saying that collective ownership is akin to your relationship with your housemates may cause some new leftists to assume a largely or entirely informal system like you might have with a housemate, which could reinforce the claim that “without capitalism nobody would ever do any labor”. Of course, you did preface that statement with the note that this is in the case of a fully socialist society, wherein the amount of labor actually necessary could potentially be small, but that new leftist probably wouldn’t key into that, as they likely have little to no knowledge of the progression of capitalism to DotP and beyond. But overall, excellent explanation of marxism that other than this small point seems clear enough for even someone with no knowledge of Marxism at all to get a good understanding.
@@Artifex_Prudens UBI isn't the only way to accomplish that, and that also assumes the preservation of a fiat currency, but yeah the gist of that is true
I’m new to Marxist ideas, and am trying to do a bit of research as I’m part of the American working class, and I can see the growing gap between working class folks and the wealthy in this country.
The private property concepts are what trips me up a bit. Maybe it’s hard to think outside of the box that I live within, but without private property, what do people really have to work towards?
Perhaps my own viewpoint is once again tarnished, because my passion in life is music/being a musician. Every labor job I’ve had has simply been there to pay my bills/save up for things, etc. Now to my understanding there is a difference between personal possessions and private property, but I guess my ultimate question is: if everything is communally owned, then what would people really have a desire to work for?
I suppose the desire of “having a purpose” is a natural motivator of sorts, but it’s hard for me to believe that the massive number of professions in the world could really be passion-driven. Maybe the idea is that people should generally work less? I certainly would be a lot happier without a 40-hr work week.
@@tylerblake3596 Assuming that we never progress past a labor scarce system, which we can't assume probably but for sake of argument I will, you are guaranteed your human rights (food, shelter, transportation, healthcare, in todays world arguably internet, etcetera) which you do not need to work for, but you have to work for your luxuries. This does mean there is less incentive to work, but there is still plenty without anyone being forced to work or starve.
You still work towards personal property, too. A house might be guaranteed, but you might work for everything else you own, or maybe a better house. Most people I think are very willing to work for more than just the right to live, but also if you are willing to live a spartan lifestyle that doesn't cost that much to society it is probably okay to let you live a fine life without working in my opinion.
Plus, if people worked just a little less, it would likely not impact net productivity by all that much as you start to get diminishing returns per hour of labor above 30 hours a week from the studies I have read, and it would likely reduce stress a lot and thus increase public health and lifespans to an extent, all that seems like a pretty good tradeoff for a pretty small sacrifice in productivity (and I would argue that sacrafice may well be vastly outscaled by the productivity advantages of a non market system over a market one, assuming a given level of starting capital at the time of transition away from markets).
@@Nosirrbro
I am reminded of the story of the grasshopper and the ant. The world does not owe you a living. And _somebody_ has to work to get that food to your table. All those things you feel entitled to -- require work. How much work, and what type, has changed over hundreds of thousands of years. But the mandate of "work or starve" has remained throughout.
Fabulous video. Very clear and accurate. A useful distinction is to call property that is only useful to you (like your toothbrush) "personal property," while property you "own" under capitalism that is used for profit (like a farm or factory) "private property."
@Tyler Fox Quite right. Social property is owned by and paid for by all: highways, water systems, most airports, stadiums, public schools, parks, fire departments, and so on. Also the punitive (and largely unnecessary) kind: prisons, police, the military, and so on.
"A useful [lie] is to call property that is only useful to you (like your toothbrush) 'personal property,' while property you 'own' under capitalism that is used for profit (like a farm or factory) 'private property.'"
Fixed it for you. Almost anything can be used as a "means of production" if you are so inclined.
"Also the punitive (and largely unnecessary) kind: prisons, police, the military, and so on."
Every communist country decides those things are very necessary to subdue capitalists.
your video was used for my poli sci class :)!
what, by your professor??
@@Xexizy by my TA! I'm sure it went through the professor though. We had to explain Marx's theory in relation to property rights :)! Your video acc helped me a lot.
this is really well made! the superior version of prageru
lol
That’s an insane understatement
best show is back
This is great. Excellent quality, outstanding craftsmanship. I will buy whatever you shill, sir.
Private property more like... Cringe property lmfao cappies rekt
Private Property? More like PRIVATE PARTS!
3:25 - the VISIBLE hand.
animations and art are very nice
my new to the left, this vid helped so much~ thank you
A hollywood film from the 90's comes to mind called 'Sneakers' starring Robert Redford and Ben Kingsley as two people who were part the 1968 alternative movement. But then went there separate ways: one to become a highly successful coporate figure in the silicon valley world of high tech, while the other went underground as a hacker against the system. Both figures clashing when a device that appears to be able to break any form of encryption appears and raises old questions about freedom again.
Why does this still have less than half the amount of views than subscribers??? Come on! *pokes youtube algorithm with a stick*
Perhaps it's just because few people fall for those things...
good video, i think alot of people misinterpet this part, or make it fit to what they want it to sometimes
LETS GOOO!!!
I just watched the other Marx in Minutes video and was wondering if you'd ever make another one.
great vid, love the animations and drawings
imho I thought this was good and different. Nice to get into a little detail about the transition from feudalism to capitalism. I think it makes sense that by specialising work you can be collectively be more productive - i.e. the transition to a production line approach (I studied engineering). However, specialising leads to parallel or series approaches rather than an integrated approach - it creates a zombiefied production process... and leads to a blind dictatorial set up in the factories and businesses that us it.
tysm omg this explains alot
Niiiiice. thank you for this, this will actually be useful for a couple people i know
also is vaush leftcom now?
In time.
What's leftcom?
@@eoin8450 no one has ever known....
@@eoin8450 Left Communism, it was a term that was applied to more orthodox Marxists that moved away from Soviet style politics.
@@highlonesomed "Soviet style", what does that mean?
You should totally go on Vaush’s stream👌
that would be based.
Hoping this can eventually lead into talking about how free association and abolition of IP can actually ake production to new heights in a way that is quantitatively different tho.
So glad I found this channel
very nice content dude, as always 👍
Perfect analogy for Socialism! It's like living with your housemates... If no one does the dishes, you kill them! Amazing video! Thank you for making it clear how ridiculous this ideology is!
Youre my new favourite breadtuber by far
amazin'
There have only been two real world experiments where a single society was split into a more socialist half and a more capitalist half. Those are East/West Germany and North/South Korea. Both experiments resulted in economic and humanitarian disaster for the unfortunate souls who found themselves on the socialist side.
wow I had not heard Dr. Layman's voice in a looong time, that was unexpected
Yeah! New video, time to aufheben everything! Great video btw
Informative ✅
Hippity hoppity abolish private property!
Imagine building an entire society on an imaginary idea such as "private property"... we are really delusional.
Since you don't believe in private property, why don't you give all of your possessions away?
@@BigHomieSteveTheMetalHead I can't commit financial suicide, the change must come either from the top down, or all at once, but can't perpetuate this fantasy, it's destroying that which we depend on.
@@rappar9673 then you shouldn't be supporting this ideology, because the state is who will dictate what property you can and can't have and your freedoms will be under strict control. Are you aware of what has happened in every country who has tried this?
Ahh yes, I love some good theory early in the morning.
So we need to get rid of the police....
love this :)
Capitalism is basically just marginally improved Feudalism. Fight me lol.
Capitalism is Feudalism 2.0.
you're right
I really liked the stylish art of the video and concise presentation. Great work. My only criticism is that the background music is a tad too loud and can sometimes be a bit distracting.
Great video! Thank you for the content 👍🏼
Capitalism was never really about currency at all, it's about private ownership as a means of generating profit and thus more private ownership. Currency is just the quantitative means to expand private ownership ever outward until it encompasses everything. I wish people who hated marxism would do the work of actually researching it to hate it properly. That's what I did and it's why I became a marxist.
I hate marxism cause it takes away freedom
Capitalism creates wealth Marxism creates poverty. That's all you need to know.
Jesus Christ, This is high fucking quality mate. How long did it take to makes this?
A few months because I didn't have a work ethic schedule
2:44 Vaush???
Yes
This looks so great ! It's like pragerU but a better, improved version of it
😎
The left's answer to PragerU? 😳
😎
VAUSH READ
VAUSH READ
Like and comment comrades
This channel is so very based
"Private property is essentially dictatorial but also cooperatives are private property."
Because employment and "ownership restricted to a select group of people"?
You said that the democratic control under communism is limited to the workers of the means of production.
How is ownership not restricted if the democratic control is?
Can the housemates not kick someone out? Is that not a form of restricting ownership?
The workers in reality are SAID to be represented by the party of the proletariat. Which means by the communist party. Good luck! We know what that means.
3:40: Another interesting point to make is that the lords frequently owned things like plows, plow-teams, mills, etc, which were important to agriculture but too expensive for individual serfs. (Though sometimes a village of serfs would collectively own a plow-team/mill/etc.)
acoup.blog/2020/07/31/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-ii-big-farms/
Why would you get vaush to voice Marx when he's a radlib
A proper and simpler analysis of private property and Marxian economics
Wouldn't a tooth brush be considered personal property in the first place and not private property? The whole metaphor falls apart for me since I can't make this work in my head.
it is, the FACTORY is private property. when it comes to referring to social property that is. the toothbrush is private property, without a social role
ergo personal property
They mean the same thing. The commies like to use it as a means of telling you what they will and will not steal from you.
Excellent video, bit could have a bit simplified from some to fully understand. But overall great
what parts did you have in mind?
@@Xexizy content was great however I would change some of the language for people who don't have a basic understanding of theory. For example. Property relations, the explanation come across a bit academic and abstract. That's it, overall I love the contant keep up the good work
@@spoonsnaper cool, I'll keep that in mind thanks
Great visual presentation and very informative. Good job👍
**On the events in Belarus**
What is going on in Belarus is not a “maidan”, it’s a democratic revolution.
The main moving force of this revolution, its backbone, is the working class of Belarus.
Whether this democratic revolution will win or get defeated by the counter-revolution (presented by the yet not overthrown clan of oligarchs led by Lukashenko or presented by the so-called “opposition” reflecting the interests of other groups of the largest capitalist monopolies, including foreign ones), we do not know yet - it will depend on the ratio of the class power in Belarus, on the actions of the classes participating in the revolution, on the working class, on its awareness, cohesiveness and organization.
The democratic revolution in Belarus is not yet going beyond the bourgeois framework and is not seeking to change the social structure radically (to replace the capitalist way of production with the communist way of production), which means that, in its content, this is a bourgeois-democratic, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist revolution. But due to the objective laws of social development, if the leadership (the hegemony) of the working class remains, if the latter manages to coalesce into its class political party of the Bolshevik variety and unite all working folk of Belorussia around itself, this revolution will have every chance to grow into a socialist revolution. Read further work-way.com/en/2020/09/03/on-the-events-in-belarus/
I feel like this didn’t quite answer my question? Maybe I came in a bit different from others though. I knew the difference between obviously personal property and obviously private property (toothbrush vs factory). But I don’t feel like this gave my a clear idea of a dividing line or if there even is one definitionally. Things like a t-shirt press or glass blowing kiln or wood workshop with are privately owned and operated but produce goods for public consumption; our economy would not function without these, so they are unquestionably a part of the means of production. Rather than decentralizing power I think we’ve seen time and again that the means of production which will be seized first are those that are most vulnerable: that is, private property owned by people who aren’t rich enough for the police to care about.
I guess my question is: what about the means of production which are currently owned and operated by all of the producers?
this guy is like the right opinion but with communism. its great.
Private property is a human right and necessary to human flourishing
Oversimplified but good
These are meant to be simple introductions
Hey comrade. Can you give us some good objective source for socialist history? Thanks.
No thanks
Based anime
Wait what the fuck?! Is that Vaush?!
great quick explainer, thanks for this! =)
The toothbrush and the toothbrush factory made for a clear distinction. But what about something more dicey like housing? Would that be personal or social property?
@Pack -A- Punch
1. Housing is generally not easily moveable.
2. What do you mean with the concept of “real property”?
@Pack -A- Punch
So what happens with Real Property? Is an individual allowed to own that?
@Pack -A- Punch On what?
@Pack -A- Punch
Ok, so a person can own a piece of land with a house on it. Like 100-200 square meters of land.
But larger pieces of land or a larger building with apartments in it, that is owned collectively?
Would it be possible to own an apartment in a building?
@Pack -A- Punch
But if there is not supposed to be a market, then how do you come to buy it and own it?
This was cool, but I prefer the vids where you just talk ♥️
Could you do a video on whether Marx was an anti-semite?
worker make profit too?
nice. borrows Vaush's voice for video that debunks his stupid coops = socialism ideology. ruthless
If i own a company and I build it from the ground up, I buy the machines, I buy the materials for production, and I compensate the workers. Then i 100% am entitled to the machines that I purchased as my own private property. Im not going build a business to benefit society 99% of businesses dont, and the only reason I would have employees would be because I physically cannot operate 20 or 30 machines in a factory simultaneously, if I could, than there would be no need for the employees.
Please tell me your going to do Marx in minutes on value form
we already did: ruclips.net/video/67HfnfLYr7U/видео.html
@@Xexizy I see would you do a marx in mins on concrete and Abstract labor?
@@commwave5820 that first video covers all the concepts it just doesn't explicitly call them by those terms
@@Xexizy okay when is your video on police abolition coming out
@@commwave5820 idk but I'm working on it
What I'm wondering is this: for places where communities are difficult to define (especially in cities with suburbs that sprawl into one another) how could one figure out which means of production belong to whom?
eh beats me dude. i just want free shit. fuck capitalism.
That's the main problem.
You are basically asking, to whom all the productive thing will belong.
Considering it is a communitie, it's reasonable to expect a election, which always brings the same results as today's governmental election... bad people in power...
That's my view on the matter.
If they're voting it's still the same shit.
One group will be imposing it's wil on others.
@@diggydumbo9294 Socialist democracy is different to liberal democracy. If you apply Socialist democracy to the workplace, the CEO’s of the workplace would be elected by his employees and could be voted out of his position if he abuses it or is incompetent, he isn’t there for 4 years, there’s no time limit, he could stay until he dies, but if he fucks up he’s gone.
@@GringoBrasileiro2022Exactly. As soon as the workers decide they want them gone, they will be ousted. We will not give that person a monopoly on violence. So if they want to fuck around, they will be found out.
Comment for promotion
Hello. What made you become a communist rather than a capitalist or socialist? Thanks.
You back for good this time?
nah lol starting a masters in a month but I'll keep trying my best
@@Xexizy understandable, school takes up a lot of time, happy to get the videos you are able to put out. Good luck on your studies!
we are trying to make this more regular tho
I found the radical change in voices made it hard to concentrate on what is being said
The music makes it impossible to listen to this
Alex still exists??
Coupdnt you just.... isnt this just private vs personal property? This case has been made better and more clearly before.
Vaush??
Literally vaush reading???
Love it. I am of the "worker self-directed enterprise" interpretation of Marx, but see how that needs to then be coupled with truly democratic state-planning and even less worker-coop "private ownership", so as to keep things even more fairly distributed. However, how can we both design and implement such a large scale economy without uncomfortable amounts of force by potentially questionable individuals? I assume you are advocating for anarchy basically? Or essentially everything would be publicly owned and we would all essentially become government employees like teachers, firefighters, police, etc...? I am struggling to wrap my head around even worker-coops still being too much private ownership and how we could do even better.
Sweet give me your stuff then
did you watch the video?
This animation & explanation is really great. Would make them a bit shorter tho
Vaush does have some shit takes, hopefully your collaberation can pull him further left, would've preferred Hakim instead
isn't he a tankie
@@Xexizy badempanada then?
@@Xexizy I don't think hes a tankie, hes debated a fair number of them
@@Xexizy i'd say
Hakim>you>Badmouse (inactive now)>Mexie>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>vaush
There is no point to arguing with tankies they are delusional larpers
algorithm comment
Good video but I can never respect you for saying Irish socialist republicans should be treated by fascist
What?
Sounds good on paper but without a profit motive - not likely
There are other motives besides the profit motive. Just look at small business owners for instance, who list their #1 motivation being personal achievement and self-worth through self-management; the next motivation is financial security (not necessarily profit). This idea of [workers'] self-management is a major tenet of socialism/communism and why the abolition of private property (and thus the capitalist class) is necessary to achieve it.
@@niabcm19 I'm not saying profit is the only motivator, however without it things aren't likely to get done especially on such a large scale
Did you watch the video or just comment this on anything with “Marx" in the title?
@@zoewells3160 oof big cope. come back with an argument.
@@cookiedestroyer402 Mankind produced use values without profit motive for 300 thousand years.
Good video but i disagree, Capitalism is natural to humanity, some produce something and sell it for something other person produced, it doesn’t make sense to me why should a person with the capital to invest and take the risk to open a factory or any kind of industry is going to do it if the state is just going to steal it from him and if the state wants to tax him out of existence then why would he stay in the jurisdiction? And if they leave or disappear are all the expenses of the state going to fall into the taxation of the middle and low class?
Those are my question, honestly i believe capitalism is like a hammer and socialism is like a screwdriver they are different tools for different problems.
And its never good to go to any extreme
Please read some history regarding the primitive accumulation process in the 16-19th century (mostly about forced confiscation, slave trade and genocidal practices) and then again try to justify private accumulation of capital as "human nature".
Production and exchange is not what defines capitalism, hiring wage labor for profit due to the concentration of private ownership of means of production into a tiny portion of the population is. A capitalist only risks losing his investment, yet his workers will risk losing their entire livelihood. Who takes a bigger risk?
Historically, state power is established to maintain private ownership of means of production by justifying violence against anyone trying to disrupt the relation without recognized compensation. A socialist state will work in the opposite way by abolishing the right to privately own means of production and maintaining this status. Stealing in socialist terms will therefore be defined as confiscating collectively owned means of production into private hands, together with shifting ownership of personal property without compensation. There will never be any taxation of capitalists in a socialist society, since capitalists should not even exist in a socialist society in the first place. All means of production are already collectively owned.
This is really well produced. Thank you for making digestible left-wing content!
Also I hear you use Linux, so you're cool with me
Man why did i have to be born so early before the communist utopia :( shit actually fucking sucks tbh
Anthony Scalia (u.s Supreme Court judge) said that the Soviet Union had a superior bill of rights compared to the United States when it comes to have many rights are given to the people. But they did not have the constitution/government to protect those rights. This is the main question of your ideology. Can an absolute government even with democratic choice protect the individual, generations past its conception. If we are to examine enlightenment principles. The answer would be no. Even a group of workers controlling everything is a powder keg for tyranny. Why should I trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away.
Hmm, peasants rounded up by police to work for industry? I'd like to see more information on when/where this happened. Maybe in Soviet Russia or Ukraine.
I wish I could ask you a complex question regarding operating a self sustaining farm in an ideal socialist society. This is one of the only areas where I can’t reconcile socialist principles with my own. Would a land owner, such as myself, have his mode of living drastically changed if placed in a social, de-commodified, marketplace?
How are worker cooperatives privately owned that makes no sense. Maan I just want to earn all the benefits of my labor😤
Yeah, I didn't understand that part either. They just kinda glossed over it without explaining.
The ownership of means of production in Co-ops within contemporary capitalist society is still exclusive to the workers who actually work in it, and profit motive is still the dominant force driving the production process. Co-ops could be useful in the transitional period, but the end goal is still the expanding the ownership (i,e. the right of decision making on how to deal with the means of productions) to the entire community (producer and consumers alike), letting social need be the real driving force of the production process, instead of profit.
Lmao
My question is, could anyone from the community just walk into the factory and take a toothbrush?
Acc to Marx, in communism everyone can take what they need.
But that requires the "new" human being with a "communist mind" who would put the whole above himself or herself and not take excessively or even work without incentives.
They are still waiting for this new communist human being. Without this new communist human being there is per definition no communism.
The problem is only, that people do not become less selfish just because everything belongs to the state. If there are no incentives, people dodge work. External changes do not change human beings. Why should they?
The big error is to think that human beings change or become better just because the means of production belong to the state. Yes, they changed, but became more selfish and superficial, losing their spirituality in many cases. Externally seen, they often behave like mere matter or a lump of meat. But nevertheless, they still have a spirit that simply needs to be revived. And for this to happen we need a revolution of true love, centering on God, not just some violent overthrow of society, based on hatred and greed.
Marxism is simply an evil ideology based on hatred. How can that create an ideal society? An ideal society comes from the ideology of true love centering on God's love.