"The truth is that we all know what free market advocates really mean when they say that we need 'limited government'. Limited when it comes to services and support for the people, generous and unconditional when it comes to protecting private interests." The neoliberal privatization wave is a perfect example of this.
Why is it only the government which has to provide services and support for the people? Why is that better than us, the people, providing these things for each other? If I give a dollar to you, you get the full dollar. If this exchange is done through government, how much if that dollar are you likely to get?
@@yorkshiremgtow1773 State isnt something above society above the production and socio economic conditions. State serves the interests of Ruling class, here it means capital
It is great that the left agenda is gaining momentum also on the West. We in Russia already have a dozen of left-wing educational and propaganda channels, some over 100k subscribers. The level of discussion has long reached beyond the basics of Marxism, LTV n stuff. People analyze formalizations of dialectics and their concrete applications, modern monetary theories and more.
Leftism is alive in well in the West! I am keeping up with Russia's left scene as well. I watch Вестник Бури, Выход Есть, and Константин Сёмин. Hopefully someday Western channels can get as big as the Russian ones!
you should read "debt: the first 5000 years" by david graeber. it goes even further back in time, to show the history of state intervention to establish markets.
In an alternate universe, could modernization have happened without primitive accumulation? Is it possible to develop pre-capitalist society to create more wealth without engaging in the traumatic acts of enclosure and privatisation? Or was it necessary to happen in order to foster the conditions for class consciousness?
I think the point might be that primitive accumulation (and extra-economic accumulation in general) is a normal feature of capitalist development, even past its nascent stages. The state is one of many tools capitalists employ to further the process of capital accumulation. If some capitalists chose to abstain from using the state to their advantage, their competitiors would have done so anyway. In other words, it would not be a rational choice for a capitalist to avoid the use of the state. Also, every mode of production in the history of class society saw the domination of the exploiter class in the arena of the state, so it would have been a bizarre (and likely impossible) departure from tradition for the capitalist class to do without the state.
Yes, the libertarian narrative that less state intervention is better for capitalists is wrong. That was written by academics not by businessmen with skin in the game. Marx is more accurate.
The whole Libertarian mythology of "not real capitalism", "The state ruined capitalism" ignores the fact that the first Capitalists as defined by Liberalism were almost exclusively members of the former Merchant, Guild, Landowning, and Aristocracy classes. So the period of "small government" with only small-medium sized businesses has quite literally never existed. Even at its beginning, Capital was highly centralized. The State that Libertarians whine about was created by Capitalists, for Capitalists. Even Adam Smith believed a powerful government would be required to tame Capitalism, and prevent it from destroying itself. What Smith failed to realize is that powerful Capital can take control of the state that was theoretically supposed to tame it.
Privatisation didn't make them wage earners but entrepreneurs who keep their fruits of labor. The king/lord can't expropriated the farmer earning by force which is worst than tax.
Nice one as always.. Capitalism is not separable from authority manifested in the national state, this creates the contradiction for global capitalism in which there is no real global authority system to support this phase of capitalism.
The market is the State, and the State is the market in a Capitalist regime. They are two sides of a single whole. Markets can’t exist without contracts, and contracts can’t exist without a State to enforce them. Either it’s a formal State, or it’s an informal one (warlords, gang leaders, mafia bosses, etc…). But there’s always a State, always a recognized central rule maker and enforcer.
Hey! Thanks for giving basic understanding of Marxism in such a smooth way. I have a request. Please make a video on Monopoly Capitalism (probably something important in Marxist theory) and also the stagnant/ declining wages and living standards in West. Lovely Channel😊.
Wow. Another great video! I request you to do a detailed video or maybe series on economic progress and systems in Soviet Russia, something along these lines. Also, another one about busting popular myths about communism and socialism. LOVE YOUR EFFORT!
This is a great video, I love your incorporation of specific empirical historical case of Botswana. Silvia Federici's "Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation" is a great text for further reading on this in the vein of Marxist Feminism.
To paraphrase contrapoints, the biggest problem of left, is sounding too complicated. That's why mass doesn't like communists, because they don't understand it. I know it's my problem, that I don't understand it, but as a Marxist propaganda channel, wouldn't it be smarter, to use simpler language? I watched the first 5 minutes literally 5 times, to understand some points. I think making it simpler would also make room for debates, which could change a lot of people's minds.
I don't think it's necessarily an issue that the left is "too complicated." You definitely can spend a long time on theory and philosophy. But I think some aspects of Marxism are accessible to the masses.
4:45 Government subsidies, public-private partnerships, etc. does not equal a free market. An inability to notice that this is not the free market appears to be a form of cognitive dissonance. It is true that people do the opposite of free market policies in the name of the free market, for example, George Bush's "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system" etc. etc. Free market advocates only care about pleasing consumers, and do not want to give subsidies to any businesses -- that would be the job of social democrats, who, in turn, would blame the free market for adverse effects of subsidizing businesses arbitrarily.
I'm really interested but I get massively annoyed by the weird out of tune background music that sounds like a casseteplayer low on batteries. Not so great for people with sensory issues. Sorry thumbs down for this.
YOU SAY WE HAVE NO CAPITALIST SYSTEM AND SAY CAPITALISM NEEDS THE STATE TO HAVE ITS CURRENT CONDITION: WHAT IS CAPITALISM TO YOU? A SMALLER POPULATION GETS A MONOPOLY ESTABLISHED THRU POPULARITY CONTEST OF DEMOCRATIC VOTE THAT HAS ESTABLISHED SOCIALISM:
WE HAVE NO FREE MARKET SYSTEM THOUGH LIBERTERIANS CLAIM OTHERWISE. CAPITALISTS AND THE STATE WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE THE SOCIOECONIMIC CONDITIONS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH/REPRODUCE A DOMINANT CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION THAT DIVORCES PEOPLE FROM THE MEANS OF THEIR OWN SUBSISTENCE I.E. PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION.
There is also no such thing as THE free market. What we see as a free market changes over time. Slavery and child labor were once part of the free market. Nowadays few free market advocates would see slavery as free market. So if the definition of a free market changes over time, why hold on to the current notion of free market.
I have found that common working people have a deeper understanding of how society works than any of these highly educated, ivory tower "economists". Centralization of Capital is an unavoidable contradiction. The Libertarian mythology of a "free market" has never once existed.
@@plumetheum7017your definition of capitalism is fundamentally different from the libertarian, and your conviction that it’s never once worked has many pretensions. Yes, when you create an environment through the state to allow some to capitalize and disallow others, then slap the free-market tenet on top it isn’t free, obviously. The leftist conception of a free-market is always conflated atop the abuses of state power, that is the flaw in this argument. I won’t say you’re necessarily wrong about your understanding of the problem at hand, but you blatantly assume the definition of capitalism is universal and confuse the real with the ideal. That is intellectual heteronomy at its finest
This video is completely wrong. First of all, Capitalism isn't real. I'm going to define capital, for the sake of my argument, as "Value generated from the excess appropriation of labor". If you were a Neolithic farmer, and you knew times could be tough, you may want to toil more than you usually would, so your family wouldn't starve if that were the case; from this, it was beneficial to have a surplus amount of grain (capital); but workers and farmers without that level of hindsight, those whose brains didn't have the proper executive functioning ability, wouldn't be so good with management (of said capital), and would use up the stores of the grain before the the next harvest season, and would starve. The people that could facilitate that saving (of capital), those who were adept at providing a surplus of more grain, could exploit it so they would be the ones holding the grain itself, ie become "rich" and gain capital. Being a lord (Loav'ward, literally a bread keeper), one could accumulate wealth for themselves and their pre-agrarian regal overlord, the royals, who were the chiefs of the system and captains of its defense, and they could use the capital to buy weaponry and barracks for themselves to quell disobedience among the serfs. Eventually this system would be fine-turned to the point where vast amounts of capital could be generated to fund the expedition of the oceans, the military exploitation of others' resources, and for the beginnings of colonies around the world; at the expense of the farmers, fishermen, indigenous peoples around the world, the indigeneity of the people from the imperialist society, etc, capital was being generated. From the declaration of the rights of man, the emancipation of Jews, the political leftwing of France, came the notion of liberty across the seas here in North America where such a political system of free enterprise, taxation with representation, local judicial systems, and a representative democracy, became realized in the form of those United States of America which became THE United states of America, becoming another Imperialist country. But it's these imperialist systems which have been the cornerstone of the Marxist ideology, because they proport to be antithetical to them. And it's this construct of "Capitalism" they claim to be against, but it was a term coined by an author whose social critique of the world was skewed by his own experiences of said system; capitalism is therefore nothing more than a criticism of a particular false dialectic between groups of individuals whose financial disparity is upheld by margins who think they are above and beyond the system, or those who think they are acting "authentically", but are nevertheless reacting to the Serpent's opus: the great lie that we internalize, reflections of things beyond the here and now. You've muddied your feet before you walk into a clean pool, then you criticize the pool for being unclean, and shame others for cleaning their feet before walking in; that is dialectical materialism in practice. What is the dialectical difference between an empty glass and a glass FULL of emptiness? The glass that is FULL of emptiness has already been through the dialectical process; it exists in a "full state" because it is empty in the context of what is required to be in it, namely water, juice, or something. Materialistically, it is no different than an empty glass. But in criticizing the glass FULL of emptiness, and maintaining that the "empty glass" is the pure material, we are succumbing to the idealism of the empty glass; the idealism of deconstructed idealism. We suppose a utopian future is godless, raceless, money-less, etc; but we reflect on these deconstructed ideals, to perform our own idealism; that is the problem with this video. Capitalism is one of such extractions of idealism; that you think it's a deconstructed sum of material parts, when it's not a real thing. Your antithetical analysis of capitalism is as idealistic as the capitalism of the idealists you claim are wrong.
"I'm going to define capital, for the sake of my argument, as "Value generated from the excess appropriation of labor"." You will have to do better than that as youre taking the position Marx was critiquing and youre using the example of pre capitalist societies is even more lazy. If youre trying to promote classical political economy youre doing an embarrassing job at it. "And it's this construct of "Capitalism" they claim to be against, but it was a term coined by an author whose social critique of the world was skewed by his own experiences of said system" Marx wasn't critiquing the world, he was critiquing classical political economists' theory of private property and primitive accumulation. Try knowing what you're talking about.
I can’t believe I bought into this nonsense for over twenty years. I studied philosophy and read Marx and many others. Then I looked more closely and gave the counter arguments the benefit of the doubt (something you will *never see* on the far left). I became a psychoanalyst as I wanted to better understand human nature. And I worked hard, and started my own business. The ideas, theories, terminology, etc., in this video are just overly complicated distractions, attempting to sound intelligent. And they don’t tell the whole story. The allure of economic leftism is rooted in the desire for mommy and daddy to always take care of our lives, to make everything fair, to take from my brother and give to me. “The philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point is to change it.” BUT NOT BEFORE YOU ARE CONFIDENT THAT YOU THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND IT. 🤦🏻♂️
@@Alicegoulding Nope. There are no shortcuts to understanding. And I’m completely uninterested in trying to convince anyone. Read the counter arguments to Marxism, socialism, etc. in good faith. That’s as specific as I’m willing to get.
@@09bamasky In other words, "Just trust me bro". I think I'll trust the tried, tested and proven science of Marxism over some vague, ambiguous youtube comment.
@@chrisgaming9567 Lmao. The “tried, tested, and proven science of Marxism,” which, in literally every single trial, test, and proof in the real world, has always and without exception resulted in poverty, corruption, and tens of millions dead and in death camps. Again: Marxism and communism are simply the childish fantasy that mommy and daddy will always take care of all of your needs. A child who is allowed to believe that, raised by parents who encourage it, always turns into a monster incapable of doing anything for himself, and providing nothing of value to the world. Good luck, sweetheart. 😘
No sir, all u need for a free market society is a good Juridical System and people wanting and accepting that Juridical System. And it doesn't even have to come from any State. You base ur arguments in history? Well, we have lived most of our history without States and there have been different Juridical Systems that were developed spontaneously. I can give you examples if you want, I know an article that shows plenty of them. And I don't give a sh1t how u want to call "capitalism". I don't even want capitalism, I don't give a sh1t about who is owning the means of production. In fact, I support cooperatives, self-employement, etc. We don't need no State to help no corporation in order for the free market to work. Hear this: *if a Bank goes bankrupt ITS GOOD* and we are not suppose to bailout NONE. Maybe just a minimal income for people who can't fight for themselves (but it could be given voluntarily to NGOs) Lastly, in the case that that scenario had never happened before, why should it mean we can't fight for that?? You communists are fighting for the most ridiculous utopia (getting rid of the State once its controlling every aspect of our lives??) yet you don't doubt a second you want that. Pd: This is not to say I disagree with most of you analysis, tho ur generalization of how and why farmers went to the cities to work is absolute grotesque. We must fight State intervention most importantly when it comes to favorizing private interests, because it creates entry barriers that destroy dynamic competition thus free market.
"And I don't give a sh1t how u want to call "capitalism". I don't even want capitalism, I don't give a sh1t about who is owning the means of production." They certainly give a sh1t about you.
Ownership is having say over something. When the government intervenes in the market they take away from the say individuals have over their property. That is inherently anti capitalistic as capitalism is private ownership. A free market is a market free from force against one's will & the protection of ownership out of necessity. Whether that ownership be of another's very will through contractual agreements, physical property, or just themselves (as people own themselves). The very nature of force necessitates state protection. Ownership isn't a legal framework. It can exist without the state, but unorder to *assure* its protection against initiators of force you best have a defense system. That defense system doesn't need to be government, but in larger societies they practically must play a role. I can get into why force is an exception to privatization more if you want, but you fundamentally don't understand capitalism.
This is hogwash and doesn't address or critique primitive accumulation. Private property existed in pre capitalist societies and this truth alone invalidates your stew of words.
3:30 u really don't want to choose Botswana as a failure of economic liberalism LOL Its a miracle in between terribly poor countries thanks to free market and globalization.
The "cost" was inequality? Is that it? Its fun to watch a communist one again removing his mask of caring about the poor, because you never did. You just care about inequality. Even if it means that we are all gonna be much more poor.
@@Ilegator Botswana is definitely preferable to it’s neighbors. No one is denying that. It had great leadership. That being said, I think his point was to show how the state and capitalism are joined at the hip and he used the example of cattle farmers being forced into the cities for the benefit of agribusiness as an example.
Your argument is the same as the libertarians. They don’t like that the state is helping businesses either. If they do then they aren’t libertarians they are neo liberals who use the same arguments but in reality want to grow the corporations. Any true libertarian or Ancap is against corporations just as much as they are the government. They want small mom and pop type businesses and a society without classes but instead of everyone being the proletariat they want everyone to be the capitalist. People own their own small workshop and such. If you look at true anarcho capitalists they don’t seem too different from the social libertarians Both want a very small government and no corporations. I don’t think any true Ancap will disagree with you that we have never had a true free market in fact I’ve heard them say just that. Similar to the people that say real Marxism has never been tried you’ll find them saying real free markets have never been tried.
First, a capitalist exists only if there is a worker without his own means of production, otherwise capitalist-proletarian social relationship will not be created. When everyone is capitalist, no one is, and this is actually communism. Second, how will moms and pops sustain huge factories which produce everything modern society depends on?
"The truth is that we all know what free market advocates really mean when they say that we need 'limited government'. Limited when it comes to services and support for the people, generous and unconditional when it comes to protecting private interests."
The neoliberal privatization wave is a perfect example of this.
Whenever I hear someone say limited government I know there's gonna be more police on the streets
Why is it only the government which has to provide services and support for the people? Why is that better than us, the people, providing these things for each other? If I give a dollar to you, you get the full dollar. If this exchange is done through government, how much if that dollar are you likely to get?
@@yorkshiremgtow1773 State isnt something above society above the production and socio economic conditions. State serves the interests of Ruling class, here it means capital
@@mcboat3467 Who are the 'ruling class'?
@@yorkshiremgtow1773 capitalists, at least in the Anglo-European sphere
It is great that the left agenda is gaining momentum also on the West. We in Russia already have a dozen of left-wing educational and propaganda channels, some over 100k subscribers. The level of discussion has long reached beyond the basics of Marxism, LTV n stuff. People analyze formalizations of dialectics and their concrete applications, modern monetary theories and more.
Leftism is alive in well in the West!
I am keeping up with Russia's left scene as well. I watch Вестник Бури, Выход Есть, and Константин Сёмин. Hopefully someday Western channels can get as big as the Russian ones!
The Marxist Project Is it in English, I am trying to level up my understanding.
Could you link a few?
Я выпустник мед. Фак-а РУДН (1998г). Тогда не было ничего такого
@@themarxistproject There is no Left in the West
I look forward to each new video. They're succinct, easily digestible, and presented cleanly. Great work comrade!
Another great video keep fighting the good fight
Top-tier intros to theory
Great video. New subscriber and excites to see more!
you should read "debt: the first 5000 years" by david graeber. it goes even further back in time, to show the history of state intervention to establish markets.
This is the basics only a true believer of muh market ignores!
It is quite easy, just follow the money
Cui bono?
Good to see Fred Hampton is a patron of the channel.
what a great year for your channel, you grew into one of my favourite leftist video producers!
Thanks for your support, comrade!
I found your Botswana example interesting as I currently work there
Shared everywhere I could 🐻👍
I have always been under the impression that Botswana's economic standing is largely attributed to its diamond mining industry.
Roll back the enclosures. Restore the commons.
Great video, great presentation
In an alternate universe, could modernization have happened without primitive accumulation? Is it possible to develop pre-capitalist society to create more wealth without engaging in the traumatic acts of enclosure and privatisation?
Or was it necessary to happen in order to foster the conditions for class consciousness?
I think the point might be that primitive accumulation (and extra-economic accumulation in general) is a normal feature of capitalist development, even past its nascent stages. The state is one of many tools capitalists employ to further the process of capital accumulation.
If some capitalists chose to abstain from using the state to their advantage, their competitiors would have done so anyway. In other words, it would not be a rational choice for a capitalist to avoid the use of the state.
Also, every mode of production in the history of class society saw the domination of the exploiter class in the arena of the state, so it would have been a bizarre (and likely impossible) departure from tradition for the capitalist class to do without the state.
Yes, the libertarian narrative that less state intervention is better for capitalists is wrong. That was written by academics not by businessmen with skin in the game. Marx is more accurate.
The whole Libertarian mythology of "not real capitalism", "The state ruined capitalism" ignores the fact that the first Capitalists as defined by Liberalism were almost exclusively members of the former Merchant, Guild, Landowning, and Aristocracy classes. So the period of "small government" with only small-medium sized businesses has quite literally never existed. Even at its beginning, Capital was highly centralized.
The State that Libertarians whine about was created by Capitalists, for Capitalists. Even Adam Smith believed a powerful government would be required to tame Capitalism, and prevent it from destroying itself. What Smith failed to realize is that powerful Capital can take control of the state that was theoretically supposed to tame it.
Privatisation didn't make them wage earners but entrepreneurs who keep their fruits of labor. The king/lord can't expropriated the farmer earning by force which is worst than tax.
Nice one as always.. Capitalism is not separable from authority manifested in the national state, this creates the contradiction for global capitalism in which there is no real global authority system to support this phase of capitalism.
The market is the State, and the State is the market in a Capitalist regime. They are two sides of a single whole. Markets can’t exist without contracts, and contracts can’t exist without a State to enforce them. Either it’s a formal State, or it’s an informal one (warlords, gang leaders, mafia bosses, etc…). But there’s always a State, always a recognized central rule maker and enforcer.
Hey! Thanks for giving basic understanding of Marxism in such a smooth way. I have a request. Please make a video on Monopoly Capitalism (probably something important in Marxist theory) and also the stagnant/ declining wages and living standards in West. Lovely Channel😊.
I'll add those ideas to the list!
Speedrunning tip: lying and scamming people will allow you to clip through the floor and you can beat the Free Market in only 17:24!
If only!
Don't you have a discord server anymore? I was eager to join
woke up realizing the market is never going to be free. feeling sad 🥺🥺
Wow. Another great video! I request you to do a detailed video or maybe series on economic progress and systems in Soviet Russia, something along these lines. Also, another one about busting popular myths about communism and socialism. LOVE YOUR EFFORT!
That would definitely be a good video topic, I'll add it to the list!
Great video! Can you do a video on Marx's views on the metabolism between nature and human?
Sure, I'll put that on the list!
Great! Me gusta
Can some1 tell me if this is somewhat going on in latin america?
This is a great video, I love your incorporation of specific empirical historical case of Botswana. Silvia Federici's "Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation" is a great text for further reading on this in the vein of Marxist Feminism.
Marxist Feminism doesn't exist
But what about blaming the state for monopolization and monopolies for all flaws of capitslism?
To paraphrase contrapoints, the biggest problem of left, is sounding too complicated. That's why mass doesn't like communists, because they don't understand it. I know it's my problem, that I don't understand it, but as a Marxist propaganda channel, wouldn't it be smarter, to use simpler language? I watched the first 5 minutes literally 5 times, to understand some points. I think making it simpler would also make room for debates, which could change a lot of people's minds.
I don't think it's necessarily an issue that the left is "too complicated."
You definitely can spend a long time on theory and philosophy. But I think some aspects of Marxism are accessible to the masses.
It is State capitalism the state funding industrial complexes!! so the debate between state free market it is absurt because both go hand in hand
4:45 Government subsidies, public-private partnerships, etc. does not equal a free market. An inability to notice that this is not the free market appears to be a form of cognitive dissonance.
It is true that people do the opposite of free market policies in the name of the free market, for example, George Bush's "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system" etc. etc.
Free market advocates only care about pleasing consumers, and do not want to give subsidies to any businesses -- that would be the job of social democrats, who, in turn, would blame the free market for adverse effects of subsidizing businesses arbitrarily.
Free markets dont exist
"Free market advocates only care about pleasing consumers"
and the tooth fairy exists and the earth is flat
Why here no troll capitalists
I'm really interested but I get massively annoyed by the weird out of tune background music that sounds like a casseteplayer low on batteries. Not so great for people with sensory issues. Sorry thumbs down for this.
YOU SAY WE HAVE NO CAPITALIST SYSTEM AND SAY CAPITALISM NEEDS THE STATE TO HAVE ITS CURRENT CONDITION: WHAT IS CAPITALISM TO YOU?
A SMALLER POPULATION GETS A MONOPOLY ESTABLISHED THRU POPULARITY CONTEST OF DEMOCRATIC VOTE THAT HAS ESTABLISHED SOCIALISM:
WE HAVE NO FREE MARKET SYSTEM THOUGH LIBERTERIANS CLAIM OTHERWISE. CAPITALISTS AND THE STATE WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE THE SOCIOECONIMIC CONDITIONS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH/REPRODUCE A DOMINANT CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION THAT DIVORCES PEOPLE FROM THE MEANS OF THEIR OWN SUBSISTENCE I.E. PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION.
There is also no such thing as THE free market. What we see as a free market changes over time. Slavery and child labor were once part of the free market. Nowadays few free market advocates would see slavery as free market. So if the definition of a free market changes over time, why hold on to the current notion of free market.
Ha-Joon Chang explains this(and other things) way better in his book "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism"
Long live the freed market.
"Contrary to what economists suggest" did not work in your favour
I have found that common working people have a deeper understanding of how society works than any of these highly educated, ivory tower "economists".
Centralization of Capital is an unavoidable contradiction. The Libertarian mythology of a "free market" has never once existed.
@@plumetheum7017your definition of capitalism is fundamentally different from the libertarian, and your conviction that it’s never once worked has many pretensions. Yes, when you create an environment through the state to allow some to capitalize and disallow others, then slap the free-market tenet on top it isn’t free, obviously. The leftist conception of a free-market is always conflated atop the abuses of state power, that is the flaw in this argument. I won’t say you’re necessarily wrong about your understanding of the problem at hand, but you blatantly assume the definition of capitalism is universal and confuse the real with the ideal. That is intellectual heteronomy at its finest
This video is completely wrong. First of all, Capitalism isn't real.
I'm going to define capital, for the sake of my argument, as "Value generated from the excess appropriation of labor". If you were a Neolithic farmer, and you knew times could be tough, you may want to toil more than you usually would, so your family wouldn't starve if that were the case; from this, it was beneficial to have a surplus amount of grain (capital); but workers and farmers without that level of hindsight, those whose brains didn't have the proper executive functioning ability, wouldn't be so good with management (of said capital), and would use up the stores of the grain before the the next harvest season, and would starve. The people that could facilitate that saving (of capital), those who were adept at providing a surplus of more grain, could exploit it so they would be the ones holding the grain itself, ie become "rich" and gain capital. Being a lord (Loav'ward, literally a bread keeper), one could accumulate wealth for themselves and their pre-agrarian regal overlord, the royals, who were the chiefs of the system and captains of its defense, and they could use the capital to buy weaponry and barracks for themselves to quell disobedience among the serfs. Eventually this system would be fine-turned to the point where vast amounts of capital could be generated to fund the expedition of the oceans, the military exploitation of others' resources, and for the beginnings of colonies around the world; at the expense of the farmers, fishermen, indigenous peoples around the world, the indigeneity of the people from the imperialist society, etc, capital was being generated. From the declaration of the rights of man, the emancipation of Jews, the political leftwing of France, came the notion of liberty across the seas here in North America where such a political system of free enterprise, taxation with representation, local judicial systems, and a representative democracy, became realized in the form of those United States of America which became THE United states of America, becoming another Imperialist country. But it's these imperialist systems which have been the cornerstone of the Marxist ideology, because they proport to be antithetical to them. And it's this construct of "Capitalism" they claim to be against, but it was a term coined by an author whose social critique of the world was skewed by his own experiences of said system; capitalism is therefore nothing more than a criticism of a particular false dialectic between groups of individuals whose financial disparity is upheld by margins who think they are above and beyond the system, or those who think they are acting "authentically", but are nevertheless reacting to the Serpent's opus: the great lie that we internalize, reflections of things beyond the here and now.
You've muddied your feet before you walk into a clean pool, then you criticize the pool for being unclean, and shame others for cleaning their feet before walking in; that is dialectical materialism in practice.
What is the dialectical difference between an empty glass and a glass FULL of emptiness?
The glass that is FULL of emptiness has already been through the dialectical process; it exists in a "full state" because it is empty in the context of what is required to be in it, namely water, juice, or something. Materialistically, it is no different than an empty glass. But in criticizing the glass FULL of emptiness, and maintaining that the "empty glass" is the pure material, we are succumbing to the idealism of the empty glass; the idealism of deconstructed idealism. We suppose a utopian future is godless, raceless, money-less, etc; but we reflect on these deconstructed ideals, to perform our own idealism; that is the problem with this video. Capitalism is one of such extractions of idealism; that you think it's a deconstructed sum of material parts, when it's not a real thing. Your antithetical analysis of capitalism is as idealistic as the capitalism of the idealists you claim are wrong.
"I'm going to define capital, for the sake of my argument, as "Value generated from the excess appropriation of labor"."
You will have to do better than that as youre taking the position Marx was critiquing and youre using the example of pre capitalist societies is even more lazy. If youre trying to promote classical political economy youre doing an embarrassing job at it.
"And it's this construct of "Capitalism" they claim to be against, but it was a term coined by an author whose social critique of the world was skewed by his own experiences of said system"
Marx wasn't critiquing the world, he was critiquing classical political economists' theory of private property and primitive accumulation. Try knowing what you're talking about.
I can’t believe I bought into this nonsense for over twenty years. I studied philosophy and read Marx and many others. Then I looked more closely and gave the counter arguments the benefit of the doubt (something you will *never see* on the far left). I became a psychoanalyst as I wanted to better understand human nature. And I worked hard, and started my own business.
The ideas, theories, terminology, etc., in this video are just overly complicated distractions, attempting to sound intelligent. And they don’t tell the whole story. The allure of economic leftism is rooted in the desire for mommy and daddy to always take care of our lives, to make everything fair, to take from my brother and give to me.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point is to change it.” BUT NOT BEFORE YOU ARE CONFIDENT THAT YOU THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND IT. 🤦🏻♂️
Would you care to be specific?
@@Alicegoulding Nope. There are no shortcuts to understanding. And I’m completely uninterested in trying to convince anyone. Read the counter arguments to Marxism, socialism, etc. in good faith. That’s as specific as I’m willing to get.
@@09bamasky In other words, "Just trust me bro". I think I'll trust the tried, tested and proven science of Marxism over some vague, ambiguous youtube comment.
@@chrisgaming9567 Lmao. The “tried, tested, and proven science of Marxism,” which, in literally every single trial, test, and proof in the real world, has always and without exception resulted in poverty, corruption, and tens of millions dead and in death camps. Again: Marxism and communism are simply the childish fantasy that mommy and daddy will always take care of all of your needs. A child who is allowed to believe that, raised by parents who encourage it, always turns into a monster incapable of doing anything for himself, and providing nothing of value to the world. Good luck, sweetheart. 😘
@@09bamasky In other words, you know nothing about Marxism. Got it.
No sir, all u need for a free market society is a good Juridical System and people wanting and accepting that Juridical System. And it doesn't even have to come from any State.
You base ur arguments in history? Well, we have lived most of our history without States and there have been different Juridical Systems that were developed spontaneously. I can give you examples if you want, I know an article that shows plenty of them.
And I don't give a sh1t how u want to call "capitalism". I don't even want capitalism, I don't give a sh1t about who is owning the means of production. In fact, I support cooperatives, self-employement, etc.
We don't need no State to help no corporation in order for the free market to work.
Hear this: *if a Bank goes bankrupt ITS GOOD* and we are not suppose to bailout NONE.
Maybe just a minimal income for people who can't fight for themselves (but it could be given voluntarily to NGOs)
Lastly, in the case that that scenario had never happened before, why should it mean we can't fight for that??
You communists are fighting for the most ridiculous utopia (getting rid of the State once its controlling every aspect of our lives??) yet you don't doubt a second you want that.
Pd: This is not to say I disagree with most of you analysis, tho ur generalization of how and why farmers went to the cities to work is absolute grotesque. We must fight State intervention most importantly when it comes to favorizing private interests, because it creates entry barriers that destroy dynamic competition thus free market.
"And I don't give a sh1t how u want to call "capitalism". I don't even want capitalism, I don't give a sh1t about who is owning the means of production."
They certainly give a sh1t about you.
Ownership is having say over something. When the government intervenes in the market they take away from the say individuals have over their property. That is inherently anti capitalistic as capitalism is private ownership. A free market is a market free from force against one's will & the protection of ownership out of necessity. Whether that ownership be of another's very will through contractual agreements, physical property, or just themselves (as people own themselves).
The very nature of force necessitates state protection. Ownership isn't a legal framework. It can exist without the state, but unorder to *assure* its protection against initiators of force you best have a defense system. That defense system doesn't need to be government, but in larger societies they practically must play a role. I can get into why force is an exception to privatization more if you want, but you fundamentally don't understand capitalism.
This is hogwash and doesn't address or critique primitive accumulation. Private property existed in pre capitalist societies and this truth alone invalidates your stew of words.
3:30 u really don't want to choose Botswana as a failure of economic liberalism LOL
Its a miracle in between terribly poor countries thanks to free market and globalization.
The "cost" was inequality? Is that it? Its fun to watch a communist one again removing his mask of caring about the poor, because you never did. You just care about inequality. Even if it means that we are all gonna be much more poor.
@@Ilegator Botswana is definitely preferable to it’s neighbors. No one is denying that. It had great leadership. That being said, I think his point was to show how the state and capitalism are joined at the hip and he used the example of cattle farmers being forced into the cities for the benefit of agribusiness as an example.
@@Ilegator its fun to watch reactionaries pretend they know what theyre talking about i.e. you.
Your argument is the same as the libertarians. They don’t like that the state is helping businesses either. If they do then they aren’t libertarians they are neo liberals who use the same arguments but in reality want to grow the corporations. Any true libertarian or Ancap is against corporations just as much as they are the government. They want small mom and pop type businesses and a society without classes but instead of everyone being the proletariat they want everyone to be the capitalist. People own their own small workshop and such. If you look at true anarcho capitalists they don’t seem too different from the social libertarians Both want a very small government and no corporations. I don’t think any true Ancap will disagree with you that we have never had a true free market in fact I’ve heard them say just that. Similar to the people that say real Marxism has never been tried you’ll find them saying real free markets have never been tried.
First, a capitalist exists only if there is a worker without his own means of production, otherwise capitalist-proletarian social relationship will not be created. When everyone is capitalist, no one is, and this is actually communism.
Second, how will moms and pops sustain huge factories which produce everything modern society depends on?
woke up realizing the market is never going to be free. feeling sad 🥺🥺