People seem to forget how much quality of life has improved under democratic capitalism. A socialized society would never have invented the iPhone you recorded this on, The website you posted it on, the glasses you’re wearing, the list goes on. And even if they had been invented, who would have decided to allocate our resources and labor to the production of those goods? Historically, the most influential inventions were not understood by the masses for a long time. Jeff Bezos was told countless times that Amazon was a ridiculous idea, and he still invested countless hours to starting the company. He created a unique invention that now provides a service to hundreds of millions of people, while “only” exploiting a few hundred thousand. That’s why he “deserves” his 10 megayachts. However, oligarchs also put down new inventions to protect their wealth. The problem is that when capital gets too concentrated, we see a shift to oligarchal capitalism instead of democratic. That’s the reversal in quality of life we see now. The market of the most important areas of our lives are no longer free, and the 99% are being squeezed. Pure socialism or communism would destroy the incentives of millions of businesses that provide us better and more efficient goods and services, and without an effective means for society to prioritize its limited supplies, progress will quickly stagnate. But pure capitalism creates oligarchies that exploit the 99%, also causing progress to stagnate. The question is how to find balance. Which industries should be socialized (healthcare, firefighters, basic food, housing, transportation), and which are free from potential coercion (restaurants, entertainment, online businesses, cosmetics, technology, etc). Humans are gray area creatures, and at the end of the day we need always need balance.
@@jacobstrength3945 This comment holds some truth and is genuinely insightful, so thank you! It is also highly reductionist of some of the negatives of capitalism. You state that Amazon has benefitted millions while "only" exploiting hundreds of thousands. Id say this is not a defensible trade off. Id also say that the agrument posed in the manifesto is that Democratic capitalism will ALWAYS and certainly turn into oligarchal capitalism because the system is inherently flawed. That in Communism, iphones, and glasses, are still there, except the incentive to create such products is now an altruistic one, and not one based on capital. Your striving for balance is noble, but when class has been eliminated, and a nation strives towards a communal goal with all services provided towards those who work, innovation now becomes a thing of passion, and not greed.
Marx essentially argues that once a communist central state has been established, far enough along it can be dissolved, and have no central governing body to a nation, just territorries working towards a communal goal, kind of like if the states has a very weak/almost nonexistent federal government. Private ownership is not necessary in this communist nation, as each commune functions independently, and works towards a common good. Hope this helps!
@coleehardman that is an altruistic goal, but I prefer having a piece of land I can call my own. I also believe that the value of a good is determined by what you would pay for it, and not necessarily the labor that produced it.
In Marx's theory, the state is a body that is utilized by one class to oppress another and exercise its supremacy. As we approach communism the new proletarian state begins to wither away. "When at last it [the state] becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection - nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state." - Engels
Ok I’m not trying to be mean but how on earth can you make a 10 minute video talking about Marxism when you’ve only read a 100pg pamphlet. You should examine why it is you may think of yourself as a Marxist, is it because you’ve read his work and have been swayed by the strong analysis, or is it for vibes/aesthetic reasons. if it is the latter you should seriously consider what/who is driving those opinions before attempting to educate others, as there will be some chance that you are spreading wrong or misinformation that is hurting the cause you wish to help.
@@DrGamez123This video is not an endorsement of Marxist ideology, simply an analytical view on communism, and its implications on current societal events, based on specifically the manifesto. Currently reading Das Kapital, and The wealth of nations by Adam Smith.
9:27 true
People seem to forget how much quality of life has improved under democratic capitalism. A socialized society would never have invented the iPhone you recorded this on, The website you posted it on, the glasses you’re wearing, the list goes on. And even if they had been invented, who would have decided to allocate our resources and labor to the production of those goods? Historically, the most influential inventions were not understood by the masses for a long time. Jeff Bezos was told countless times that Amazon was a ridiculous idea, and he still invested countless hours to starting the company. He created a unique invention that now provides a service to hundreds of millions of people, while “only” exploiting a few hundred thousand. That’s why he “deserves” his 10 megayachts. However, oligarchs also put down new inventions to protect their wealth. The problem is that when capital gets too concentrated, we see a shift to oligarchal capitalism instead of democratic. That’s the reversal in quality of life we see now. The market of the most important areas of our lives are no longer free, and the 99% are being squeezed. Pure socialism or communism would destroy the incentives of millions of businesses that provide us better and more efficient goods and services, and without an effective means for society to prioritize its limited supplies, progress will quickly stagnate. But pure capitalism creates oligarchies that exploit the 99%, also causing progress to stagnate. The question is how to find balance. Which industries should be socialized (healthcare, firefighters, basic food, housing, transportation), and which are free from potential coercion (restaurants, entertainment, online businesses, cosmetics, technology, etc). Humans are gray area creatures, and at the end of the day we need always need balance.
@@jacobstrength3945 This comment holds some truth and is genuinely insightful, so thank you! It is also highly reductionist of some of the negatives of capitalism. You state that Amazon has benefitted millions while "only" exploiting hundreds of thousands. Id say this is not a defensible trade off. Id also say that the agrument posed in the manifesto is that Democratic capitalism will ALWAYS and certainly turn into oligarchal capitalism because the system is inherently flawed. That in Communism, iphones, and glasses, are still there, except the incentive to create such products is now an altruistic one, and not one based on capital. Your striving for balance is noble, but when class has been eliminated, and a nation strives towards a communal goal with all services provided towards those who work, innovation now becomes a thing of passion, and not greed.
How can there be a stateless society without privatization, silly idea
Marx essentially argues that once a communist central state has been established, far enough along it can be dissolved, and have no central governing body to a nation, just territorries working towards a communal goal, kind of like if the states has a very weak/almost nonexistent federal government. Private ownership is not necessary in this communist nation, as each commune functions independently, and works towards a common good. Hope this helps!
@coleehardman that is an altruistic goal, but I prefer having a piece of land I can call my own. I also believe that the value of a good is determined by what you would pay for it, and not necessarily the labor that produced it.
In Marx's theory, the state is a body that is utilized by one class to oppress another and exercise its supremacy. As we approach communism the new proletarian state begins to wither away.
"When at last it [the state] becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection - nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state." - Engels
Ok I’m not trying to be mean but how on earth can you make a 10 minute video talking about Marxism when you’ve only read a 100pg pamphlet.
You should examine why it is you may think of yourself as a Marxist, is it because you’ve read his work and have been swayed by the strong analysis, or is it for vibes/aesthetic reasons.
if it is the latter you should seriously consider what/who is driving those opinions before attempting to educate others, as there will be some chance that you are spreading wrong or misinformation that is hurting the cause you wish to help.
@@DrGamez123This video is not an endorsement of Marxist ideology, simply an analytical view on communism, and its implications on current societal events, based on specifically the manifesto. Currently reading Das Kapital, and The wealth of nations by Adam Smith.