This channel is fantastic! We are finally producing high quality explanations, though we may need to work on simplifying the language to reach a broader audience. Keep up the great work Marxist Project!
Your excellent content has been sorely missed, good to see new content! Reductionism, no. Determinism, yes. Marxism can be determinist without being overly reductionist, just as determinist models of physics also factor in complexity. We should certainly avoid oversimplification, but we should also hold our ground against the postmodernists and sophists out there. I really liked what you said about how elements of the old mode of production continue to survive in the new. I think this is important to understand why elements of capitalism (wages, classes, markets, etc.) continued to exist in the USSR, SFRY, PRC, etc. New modes of production aren’t born fully formed. Greta work as always, can’t wait for more wonderful material!
Marx is wrong about nationalising the means of production. So much concentrated Wealth inevitably creates corruption in attempt to control it. You can not leave the Wealth Extremely Concentrated and then hope that some perfect political mechanism will manage it in the name of the many. !!! ANY market, no matter how 'regulated' or 'non-regulated', ALWAYS results in Extreme Levels of Wealth Concentration. I, discovered that most transactions, between any two participants, exchange unequal 'Value' between the two participants i.e. one side benefits a bit more from a transaction than the other side. Such asymmetry inevitably results in extreme levels of Wealth concentration , even if the participant who benefits a bit more is selected completely randomly in each transaction. As long as the transactions keep happening the inevitable result over time is always Extreme levels of Wealth Concentration. (The velocity of the transactions and the size of a transaction affect the rate of Concentration of Wealth.) .... and that is an inherent problem of the free market caused by the tiny asymmetry of the exchanged 'Value' in each transaction. Now you can revise your comprehension of the nature of the free market! !!! We need politicians who are not afraid to say. 1) Businesses are just property and should be treated as such by the laws we make. (Businesses are not National Heritage therefore do not need help or saving.) 2) Businesses do not create jobs, the minimum purchasing power of the people creates the demand for jobs. 3) We must constantly increase the minimum purchasing power of the people. 4) The basic necessities of the modern life must be free for all , paid by taxes on the most Wealthy in our society. 5) Pooling resources (a.k.a. Nationalisation) is only useful if it reduces the cost and increases the quality for the most citizens. etc. The ABC-Tool for increase of the minimum purchasing power (Formula: 'Your minimum Purchasing Power' = 'minimum wage' + 'Benefits payments' - 'Cost of dignified living from cradle to grave') Increasing the purchasing power of the human-citizens makes them better consumers (i.e. a consumer is a human with disposable money to spend). Better consumers create the need for more jobs. More jobs allow more businesses to facilitate those jobs while pursuing 'Profit'. The ABC-tool: Any government must ensure that A, B, and C (all three requirements) are implemented simultaneously if they ever want to make everyone's lives better. A) Increase minimum wage B) Tax the Wealthy more C) Spend the extra tax revenue on valuable or necessary social programs. ( like, free education from cradle to grave, free basic haircuts, free public transport, free fiber-optic Internet, free healthcare, free basic food, free basic sex, free basic clothing, free basic accommodation, free basic phone calls, free basic clean water, etc.) Those three requirements must be enacted as one package ALWAYS .. .. or else, the people lose their minimum purchasing power.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 the marxist project lecture say: theory of transitions is complex and heterogeneous... rightly said because a nation is of complex and heterogeneous situations and circumstances... this could mean the process of economic nationalisation understandably take time, step by step, through socialism with a nation's characteristics governance... its how i understand the lecture...
@@reasonerenlightened2456 in your last narration, reminds me the many peasants and other commoners uprisings in ancient times china and korea... they demanded those that you numbered... the imperial families were unable to handle nobilities and big merchants... until uprisings targeted direct killing of nobilities... took many uprisings to have peasants/commoners backing imperial families... until again, nobilities produced puppet kings... eventually, it is the nobilities power struggles with whose own puppet king that eventually weakened them both... killed each others' increase of descendants for the choosing of a FIT KING... then came republics era that the east learned from napoleon/france...
@@gofar5185 Human's selfish nature demands that if there is Profit to be made privatisation is the main goal of the individual. To go against that is to go against human nature. Therefore, believing in the process of natural "economic nationalisation" over time is making demands on the human nature. It is unrealistic to believe that core features of the human nature (greed, selfishness, etc.) could be controlled by laws. As I said, Marx's biggest mistake was to suggest the Wealth to be left extremely concentrated in "public" hands. The inevitable result of extremely concentrated wealth is 'Corruption' or/and 'Cronyism'. The correct approach to Wealth and Power for an optimal society is to treat Wealth and Power as if water, meaning, Laws must be made to "evaporate" Wealth and Power from places of extreme concertation and then distribute them evenly like rain falling on the ground to make green grow everywhere .... in perpetuity. ... like it is with the water in a weather system. The ONLY correct solution is, perpetual re-distribution of sufficient even amount of Wealth and Power to ensure the dignified existence of every single citizen. ( There should not be a single billionaire if there is a single homeless person) The decision of how much to redistribute must be based on a statistical mathematical model and must be removed from the decision making of a government. The role of the government is to enforce the re-distribution process. Forget Keynesian economics, or Milton Friedman's economics, or Marxists economics, or any other economics in existence now or in the past. The economics I described here is the ONLY correct one. (perpetual unconditional re-distribution, evenly, of Wealth and Power from places of Extreme concentration to ensure the DIGNIFIED existence of every citizen) You are welcome. I just improved on Marx.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 every society has own ways/methods of applying a theory... what is applicable in india dont necessarily mean its applicable in thailand... in east asia, it is tried as much to use, "balance"... as much, avoid "extremity"to either positive or negative... to pick up every word of a theory and apply in society is of course impossible... its like a recipe... all standard amounts of ingredients are there... still, the taste of a menu vary on every cook... privatisation among 10% wealthy, privatisation including upper middle class, privatisation of certain means of production, state owned or nationalisation of certain manufacturing means of production... depends on whatever has stronger motivations...
Also, I am sure he might have pointed out, it is the case, for instance, that the capitalist mode of production picked up in England as landowners began to rent labor (See Ellen Meinskins Wood "Capitalism: A longer view") a conflict arose between the feudal aristocracy, and the rising capitalist. This antagonism between two modes of production led to civil wars throughout. According to a book authored by Historian Howard Zinn explains that the American Revolution followed pretty much the same pattern. The latter a betrayal of the aims of the people involved in the fighting. He does point out that military political fights will be brought forth given the variety of the correlation of forces and degree of political-economic antagonism.
I guess my question is, what are the best state of the art sources on the Marxian/Englesian conception of history. To me I feel that's a huge pillar of where Marxism stands or falls.
Sounds like Marx would have had a field day being introduced to the concept of the credit card and the late-capitalist debt society they helped create...
Hey, Young german marxist here I really appreciate your work and I want to do my share. If you want to have german captions, I could translate your videos subtitles into german for you. Just hmu, would do it for free ✌️. Greetings
10:59min I guess that there are two things worth noticing. Points of advantage, for labor, may reside in one´s capacity to asses the growth of antagonism, and whether, or, not they are indicative of a weakening of the capacity of capital to exploit workers since it reduces all relations to such. The second thing that draws once attention is that in order to capital to dominate it depends on the growth of the exploitative relation (unpaid labor hours per month, week, quater etc), it does not concern itself with defining, at least it appears to me, exhaustively every possible social relation. It simply addresses its capacity to grow. Its capacity for growth, and extension of social non-relations is what explains its Hegemony. But to believe that one may be forced to exhaustively define every feature of society in order for there to be progress, infinite possible variations, does not seem to me like a way to give oneself headway. In my opinion.
It think you are right to say that Marx was not a determinist- Stuart Hall and Althussur put it well when they quote how he didn't see the dominant structure as the social totality but merely a structure in dominance. He clearly had a very semiotic discursive theory of history evident by how he tries to socialist everything he studies in the concrete. But I think we have to also admit that a teleological view of history is inherent in a lot of his arguments implicitly. His stagist concept of development is eurocentric in how it condemns the lived experience of the 'undeveloped' into what Dipesh Chakrabarty called 'the waiting room of history'. Marx's greatest flaw is his his reproduction of european epistemologies of modernity.
I would love to see something on potential bottom down approaches- like that most anarchocoms prefer.. very big in modern social work over the past ten years two.. being that organizing and community learning leading to people just creating co-ops and coalitions outside the system.. i think I’m oversimplifying it bc I don’t understand it well either but its specifically different than both revolution and voting/reform and I can’t find many easy to understand/free sources
So the Soviet Union was not burdened by the fact the capitalist mode of production hadn't developed yet? I've always been told Marx expected the revolution to occur in England and Germany first explicitly because they had more advanced, developed capitalist economies which could inspire a proletarian movement. Without which the revolution would fail before it could even truly start. Now you're saying that's not true? If Marxism doesn't use a deterministic method than I'm sorry to say the method should be ignored. Everything is deterministic, even if we as people can't understand or be aware of what exactly determined something due to unforeseen and unacknowledged variables. Or is that what you are suggesting? Im just a little confused and desire clarification.
The quotation from Engels against an economistic interpretation of their views comes from the early 1890s. It was presaged by Engels admitting that perhaps their emphasis had been too much in favour of the substructure. That they had bent the stick too far in trying to counter the idealistic emphasis of all previous historical accounts. So, the misinterpretation of Marx and Engels on this point was partly their own fault, even if it was an understandable one.
Does this imply that Marxist or socialist that expect a transitional revolution to occur as quick and similar to the Bolsheviks revolution is more so an anomaly than what Marx was expecting with the DOTP? or is this particular video more so saying that it will be a slew of contributing factors that, not just one, that will lead to a transition and thus DOTP?
Small nitpick but material determinism is philosophically correct. The universe IS cause and effect. Marx may not have confined himself to determinism but i dont see how one could look at the world outside of scientific determinism.
While I consider myself a Determinist, I don't think, that there is a perfect proof for it, because you can't test, if the chain of causation works every time in every place of our universe. But I could be wrong, so I am happy about criticism.
markam 2004 i think all evidence shows that we live in a strictly cause and effect reality. The only evidence that would suggest otherwise is the probabilisitic nature of quantum particles. That however still may be illusory due to imperfect understanding of quantum physics.
For Marx, as for Hegel, determination is immanent (content that expresses itself in its necessary form) therefore superior to the phenomenical developement of exterior relations of cause and effect
12:06min Yes, relative autonomy, this is an empirical measurable claim, but how has this proved and advantage? It is measurable. The state, for it to function in its current historical shape, needs waged laborers cops, and a military to enforce certain social relations and inhibit others. Ex, Reagan´s use of the military. Not serving the public, or, those for whom they want to exchange their checks for use-values. The same goes for what the 700billion the military absorbs. Enabling it, its crimes against humanity, and denying things like healthcare. Once again, in case it were needed, they said use of force could be deployed to protect life rather than do away with it. If the state sector depends upon waged-labor from private arm corp, or, waged labor but publicly own it could still be a capitalist State, and its degree, in this instance, measurable autonomy increased, or, reduced depending on whom they are supposed to be serving. If it needs to sustain itself through waged labor then its autonomy from capital drops to zero.
*plays intro implying the "linear model"* "Marxist theory of history is often mischaracterized as a historical linear model" lol (good vid but just found that funny).
I'll be honest with you I couldn't understand this video. I understood some parts of it but couldn't understand what was being discussed or said here ultimately. I was hoping this channel would have been like an "Idiot's Guide To Marxism" but I guess I might be too stupid after all.
Some of our other videos are more reachable. The last few videos are building on quite a few different concepts. If you're not familiar with them it may be difficult to unpack what's going here. I always worry about striking a balance between simplifying and accurately representing the theories. On the one hand, accessibility is crucial. On the other hand, some of the "deeper" components of theory are just naturally going to be harder to understand, especially without elaborating every underlying concept.
@@themarxistproject a lot of it might have to do with word choice. There are some A level terms that compound the difficulty levels of the concepts themselves. While I also enjoy learning new words and expanding my vocabulary, that's not what I'm here for.
@@MrTaxiRob also maybe the ones that build off an earlier discussed concepts could be organized like a series (pt 1 pt 2) so the vieiwer also has the background and can contextualize the heavier vocabulary
understanding a tgeory... a deceased president in south east asia was told about the "law of supply and demand"... the then president said, "scrap that law, phase it out"... same to any theory... need step by step lectures from lecturers to be able to understand the essence of a theory...
You keep saying that Marx was not deterministic. This is leading me to turn away from Marxism and Communism. Materialism and determinism go hand in hand, to deny determinism is to deny philosophical materialism.
It doesn't say Marxism isn't deterministc, but its determinism isn't as simple and linear that many people, specially what the opponents of Marxism, think.
Determinism is fatalistic and self defeating. If everything is determined why bother do anything at all? And where is the scientific proof that determinism is true? there isn't you can find deterministic models for QM and you can fund non-deterministic models, its an open question. The bottom line is, it contradicts our lived experience of having some measure of free will. Research also shows that ppl who believe in determinism tend to exhibit negative behavioral patterns as opposed to ppl who are normal. Dialectical materialism ultimately derives from Hegel, and Hegel shows convincingly imo that both determinism and freedom exist and in fact imply each other. Refer to the Science of logic. Sorry but you need to rethink this.
depends on how the upper masses can free themselves from excessive interpretations of a theory and excessive identifications by gender religion skin color physical features etc... leading to discrimination fights of one another... leading to fascists anti fascists neo nazis anti nazis far right far left ... all are "upper masses dilemma" within themselves... allowing identifications to be reasons of being adversaries... marxists are understandably of the upper hand because they have the books of marx as guidance... so marxists are the ones to understand better that identifications are not to be allowed to be used to create ill judgmentalism, ill discriminations toward one another... that any differences could be resolved by proper verbal reasoning...
This channel is fantastic! We are finally producing high quality explanations, though we may need to work on simplifying the language to reach a broader audience. Keep up the great work Marxist Project!
Wow, this channel is growing. I hope you get to 100k subscribers.
Your excellent content has been sorely missed, good to see new content!
Reductionism, no. Determinism, yes. Marxism can be determinist without being overly reductionist, just as determinist models of physics also factor in complexity. We should certainly avoid oversimplification, but we should also hold our ground against the postmodernists and sophists out there.
I really liked what you said about how elements of the old mode of production continue to survive in the new. I think this is important to understand why elements of capitalism (wages, classes, markets, etc.) continued to exist in the USSR, SFRY, PRC, etc. New modes of production aren’t born fully formed.
Greta work as always, can’t wait for more wonderful material!
Can you do a video on Marx’s epistemological break, overdetermination, and what that means for materialist and class analysis?
Sure, that would be a great video!
So is a society based off of the economy?
Marx: Well, yes, but actually no.
Marx is wrong about nationalising the means of production. So much concentrated Wealth inevitably creates corruption in attempt to control it.
You can not leave the Wealth Extremely Concentrated and then hope that some perfect political mechanism will manage it in the name of the many.
!!!
ANY market, no matter how 'regulated' or 'non-regulated', ALWAYS results in Extreme Levels of Wealth Concentration.
I, discovered that most transactions, between any two participants, exchange unequal 'Value' between the two participants i.e. one side benefits a bit more from a transaction than the other side. Such asymmetry inevitably results in extreme levels of Wealth concentration , even if the participant who benefits a bit more is selected completely randomly in each transaction. As long as the transactions keep happening the inevitable result over time is always Extreme levels of Wealth Concentration.
(The velocity of the transactions and the size of a transaction affect the rate of Concentration of Wealth.)
.... and that is an inherent problem of the free market caused by the tiny asymmetry of the exchanged 'Value' in each transaction.
Now you can revise your comprehension of the nature of the free market!
!!!
We need politicians who are not afraid to say.
1) Businesses are just property and should be treated as such by the laws we make.
(Businesses are not National Heritage therefore do not need help or saving.)
2) Businesses do not create jobs, the minimum purchasing power of the people creates the demand for jobs.
3) We must constantly increase the minimum purchasing power of the people.
4) The basic necessities of the modern life must be free for all , paid by taxes on the most Wealthy in our society.
5) Pooling resources (a.k.a. Nationalisation) is only useful if it reduces the cost and increases the quality for the most citizens.
etc.
The ABC-Tool for increase of the minimum purchasing power
(Formula: 'Your minimum Purchasing Power' = 'minimum wage' + 'Benefits payments' - 'Cost of dignified living from cradle to grave')
Increasing the purchasing power of the human-citizens makes them better consumers (i.e. a consumer is a human with disposable money to spend).
Better consumers create the need for more jobs. More jobs allow more businesses to facilitate those jobs while pursuing 'Profit'.
The ABC-tool: Any government must ensure that A, B, and C (all three requirements) are implemented simultaneously if they ever want to make everyone's lives better.
A) Increase minimum wage
B) Tax the Wealthy more
C) Spend the extra tax revenue on valuable or necessary social programs.
( like, free education from cradle to grave, free basic haircuts, free public transport, free fiber-optic Internet, free healthcare, free basic food, free basic sex, free basic clothing, free basic accommodation, free basic phone calls, free basic clean water, etc.)
Those three requirements must be enacted as one package ALWAYS .. .. or else, the people lose their minimum purchasing power.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 the marxist project lecture say: theory of transitions is complex and heterogeneous... rightly said because a nation is of complex and heterogeneous situations and circumstances... this could mean the process of economic nationalisation understandably take time, step by step, through socialism with a nation's characteristics governance... its how i understand the lecture...
@@reasonerenlightened2456 in your last narration, reminds me the many peasants and other commoners uprisings in ancient times china and korea... they demanded those that you numbered... the imperial families were unable to handle nobilities and big merchants... until uprisings targeted direct killing of nobilities... took many uprisings to have peasants/commoners backing imperial families... until again, nobilities produced puppet kings... eventually, it is the nobilities power struggles with whose own puppet king that eventually weakened them both... killed each others' increase of descendants for the choosing of a FIT KING... then came republics era that the east learned from napoleon/france...
@@gofar5185
Human's selfish nature demands that if there is Profit to be made privatisation is the main goal of the individual. To go against that is to go against human nature. Therefore, believing in the process of natural "economic nationalisation" over time is making demands on the human nature. It is unrealistic to believe that core features of the human nature (greed, selfishness, etc.) could be controlled by laws.
As I said, Marx's biggest mistake was to suggest the Wealth to be left extremely concentrated in "public" hands. The inevitable result of extremely concentrated wealth is 'Corruption' or/and 'Cronyism'.
The correct approach to Wealth and Power for an optimal society is to treat Wealth and Power as if water, meaning, Laws must be made to "evaporate" Wealth and Power from places of extreme concertation and then distribute them evenly like rain falling on the ground to make green grow everywhere .... in perpetuity. ... like it is with the water in a weather system.
The ONLY correct solution is, perpetual re-distribution of sufficient even amount of Wealth and Power to ensure the dignified existence of every single citizen. ( There should not be a single billionaire if there is a single homeless person)
The decision of how much to redistribute must be based on a statistical mathematical model and must be removed from the decision making of a government. The role of the government is to enforce the re-distribution process.
Forget Keynesian economics, or Milton Friedman's economics, or Marxists economics, or any other economics in existence now or in the past.
The economics I described here is the ONLY correct one. (perpetual unconditional re-distribution, evenly, of Wealth and Power from places of Extreme concentration to ensure the DIGNIFIED existence of every citizen)
You are welcome. I just improved on Marx.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 every society has own ways/methods of applying a theory... what is applicable in india dont necessarily mean its applicable in thailand... in east asia, it is tried as much to use, "balance"... as much, avoid "extremity"to either positive or negative... to pick up every word of a theory and apply in society is of course impossible... its like a recipe... all standard amounts of ingredients are there... still, the taste of a menu vary on every cook... privatisation among 10% wealthy, privatisation including upper middle class, privatisation of certain means of production, state owned or nationalisation of certain manufacturing means of production... depends on whatever has stronger motivations...
Love the series. Clear and concise.
Fantastic video as always
love your intro. and your video. and your channel. and probably you, if i knew you in person
Amazing work
Enjoyable as always! Thanks for the upload!
Amazing video as always. Keep up the great work!
I really enjoyed this video. Thankyou for making it.
Now I need a video to explain this video. I see what you did there very clever
It would be interesting if you also do a video on parametric determinism as an addition to the theory of transitions.
Thanks
great video
Fantastic vídeo man, keep up the good work!
Also, I am sure he might have pointed out, it is the case, for instance, that the capitalist mode of production picked up in England as landowners began to rent labor (See Ellen Meinskins Wood "Capitalism: A longer view") a conflict arose between the feudal aristocracy, and the rising capitalist. This antagonism between two modes of production led to civil wars throughout. According to a book authored by Historian Howard Zinn explains that the American Revolution followed pretty much the same pattern. The latter a betrayal of the aims of the people involved in the fighting. He does point out that military political fights will be brought forth given the variety of the correlation of forces and degree of political-economic antagonism.
I guess my question is, what are the best state of the art sources on the Marxian/Englesian conception of history. To me I feel that's a huge pillar of where Marxism stands or falls.
Sounds like Marx would have had a field day being introduced to the concept of the credit card and the late-capitalist debt society they helped create...
Hey,
Young german marxist here I really appreciate your work and I want to do my share. If you want to have german captions, I could translate your videos subtitles into german for you. Just hmu, would do it for free ✌️.
Greetings
Muy interesante, me suscribo.
I'm glad you all are still here and doing videos. You all should see if Hasan Piker might want to chat with you all on a general talk episode!
Please do the Diggers! In 1649 on st georges hill a ragged band they called the diggers came to show the peoples will!
10:59min I guess that there are two things worth noticing. Points of advantage, for labor, may reside in one´s capacity to asses the growth of antagonism, and whether, or, not they are indicative of a weakening of the capacity of capital to exploit workers since it reduces all relations to such. The second thing that draws once attention is that in order to capital to dominate it depends on the growth of the exploitative relation (unpaid labor hours per month, week, quater etc), it does not concern itself with defining, at least it appears to me, exhaustively every possible social relation. It simply addresses its capacity to grow. Its capacity for growth, and extension of social non-relations is what explains its Hegemony. But to believe that one may be forced to exhaustively define every feature of society in order for there to be progress, infinite possible variations, does not seem to me like a way to give oneself headway. In my opinion.
It think you are right to say that Marx was not a determinist- Stuart Hall and Althussur put it well when they quote how he didn't see the dominant structure as the social totality but merely a structure in dominance. He clearly had a very semiotic discursive theory of history evident by how he tries to socialist everything he studies in the concrete. But I think we have to also admit that a teleological view of history is inherent in a lot of his arguments implicitly. His stagist concept of development is eurocentric in how it condemns the lived experience of the 'undeveloped' into what Dipesh Chakrabarty called 'the waiting room of history'. Marx's greatest flaw is his his reproduction of european epistemologies of modernity.
Great content✌🏼
I would love to see something on potential bottom down approaches- like that most anarchocoms prefer.. very big in modern social work over the past ten years two.. being that organizing and community learning leading to people just creating co-ops and coalitions outside the system.. i think I’m oversimplifying it bc I don’t understand it well either but its specifically different than both revolution and voting/reform and I can’t find many easy to understand/free sources
I believe the term you're looking for is "dual power."
So the Soviet Union was not burdened by the fact the capitalist mode of production hadn't developed yet? I've always been told Marx expected the revolution to occur in England and Germany first explicitly because they had more advanced, developed capitalist economies which could inspire a proletarian movement. Without which the revolution would fail before it could even truly start.
Now you're saying that's not true? If Marxism doesn't use a deterministic method than I'm sorry to say the method should be ignored. Everything is deterministic, even if we as people can't understand or be aware of what exactly determined something due to unforeseen and unacknowledged variables. Or is that what you are suggesting? Im just a little confused and desire clarification.
The quotation from Engels against an economistic interpretation of their views comes from the early 1890s. It was presaged by Engels admitting that perhaps their emphasis had been too much in favour of the substructure. That they had bent the stick too far in trying to counter the idealistic emphasis of all previous historical accounts. So, the misinterpretation of Marx and Engels on this point was partly their own fault, even if it was an understandable one.
Does this imply that Marxist or socialist that expect a transitional revolution to occur as quick and similar to the Bolsheviks revolution is more so an anomaly than what Marx was expecting with the DOTP?
or is this particular video more so saying that it will be a slew of contributing factors that, not just one, that will lead to a transition and thus DOTP?
homeboy was right about credit and boom/bust cycles
Inquilab Zindabad Comrade❤️
Inqilab Zindabad ❤️
Small nitpick but material determinism is philosophically correct. The universe IS cause and effect. Marx may not have confined himself to determinism but i dont see how one could look at the world outside of scientific determinism.
Yes I certainly agree with that. For the purposes of this video I was more referring to "determinism" in the sense of univariate causality
While I consider myself a Determinist, I don't think, that there is a perfect proof for it, because you can't test, if the chain of causation works every time in every place of our universe.
But I could be wrong, so I am happy about criticism.
markam 2004 i think all evidence shows that we live in a strictly cause and effect reality. The only evidence that would suggest otherwise is the probabilisitic nature of quantum particles. That however still may be illusory due to imperfect understanding of quantum physics.
For Marx, as for Hegel, determination is immanent (content that expresses itself in its necessary form) therefore superior to the phenomenical developement of exterior relations of cause and effect
José Tortós cause and effect create things out of necessity and specific causes lead to specific effects. Cause and effect are why determinism exists.
This Marx guy sounds really strong. I would have loved to fight against him!
12:06min Yes, relative autonomy, this is an empirical measurable claim, but how has this proved and advantage? It is measurable. The state, for it to function in its current historical shape, needs waged laborers cops, and a military to enforce certain social relations and inhibit others. Ex, Reagan´s use of the military. Not serving the public, or, those for whom they want to exchange their checks for use-values. The same goes for what the 700billion the military absorbs. Enabling it, its crimes against humanity, and denying things like healthcare.
Once again, in case it were needed, they said use of force could be deployed to protect life rather than do away with it. If the state sector depends upon waged-labor from private arm corp, or, waged labor but publicly own it could still be a capitalist State, and its degree, in this instance, measurable autonomy increased, or, reduced depending on whom they are supposed to be serving. If it needs to sustain itself through waged labor then its autonomy from capital drops to zero.
*plays intro implying the "linear model"*
"Marxist theory of history is often mischaracterized as a historical linear model"
lol (good vid but just found that funny).
I'll be honest with you I couldn't understand this video. I understood some parts of it but couldn't understand what was being discussed or said here ultimately. I was hoping this channel would have been like an "Idiot's Guide To Marxism" but I guess I might be too stupid after all.
Some of our other videos are more reachable. The last few videos are building on quite a few different concepts. If you're not familiar with them it may be difficult to unpack what's going here.
I always worry about striking a balance between simplifying and accurately representing the theories. On the one hand, accessibility is crucial. On the other hand, some of the "deeper" components of theory are just naturally going to be harder to understand, especially without elaborating every underlying concept.
@@themarxistproject a lot of it might have to do with word choice. There are some A level terms that compound the difficulty levels of the concepts themselves. While I also enjoy learning new words and expanding my vocabulary, that's not what I'm here for.
@@MrTaxiRob also maybe the ones that build off an earlier discussed concepts could be organized like a series (pt 1 pt 2) so the vieiwer also has the background and can contextualize the heavier vocabulary
understanding a tgeory... a deceased president in south east asia was told about the "law of supply and demand"... the then president said, "scrap that law, phase it out"... same to any theory... need step by step lectures from lecturers to be able to understand the essence of a theory...
@@themarxistproject its but natural that a certain lecture is not supposed to enlighten everyone...
You keep saying that Marx was not deterministic. This is leading me to turn away from Marxism and Communism. Materialism and determinism go hand in hand, to deny determinism is to deny philosophical materialism.
It doesn't say Marxism isn't deterministc, but its determinism isn't as simple and linear that many people, specially what the opponents of Marxism, think.
@@thechekist2044 Marx studied Spinoza, so when he and Engels say that Marxism is not deterministic, they mean exactly what they say.
Determinism is fatalistic and self defeating. If everything is determined why bother do anything at all? And where is the scientific proof that determinism is true? there isn't you can find deterministic models for QM and you can fund non-deterministic models, its an open question.
The bottom line is, it contradicts our lived experience of having some measure of free will. Research also shows that ppl who believe in determinism tend to exhibit negative behavioral patterns as opposed to ppl who are normal.
Dialectical materialism ultimately derives from Hegel, and Hegel shows convincingly imo that both determinism and freedom exist and in fact imply each other. Refer to the Science of logic.
Sorry but you need to rethink this.
damn, how are we supposed to reach the masses when the theory is still cloaked in academic language?
depends on how the upper masses can free themselves from excessive interpretations of a theory and excessive identifications by gender religion skin color physical features etc... leading to discrimination fights of one another... leading to fascists anti fascists neo nazis anti nazis far right far left ... all are "upper masses dilemma" within themselves... allowing identifications to be reasons of being adversaries... marxists are understandably of the upper hand because they have the books of marx as guidance... so marxists are the ones to understand better that identifications are not to be allowed to be used to create ill judgmentalism, ill discriminations toward one another... that any differences could be resolved by proper verbal reasoning...
@@gofar5185 glad we're on the same page comrade.