Lyrical Breakdown & Analysis Using Political Science: Bo Burnham "How the World Works"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 тра 2024
- Hewwo I’m Reese, I’m so glad you decided to Adventure With Me today. On Adventure With Me we look at creations and experiences in art, media, music & videogames to explore exactly WHY we think the way we think, question what we believe, and learn something new. Media you consume undoubtedly impacts our lives & interactions. And today, we’ll be talking about Bo Burnham's super funky fresh comedy special Inside (only one song tho lol) How The World Works. This is Video Essay Style! Hope its enjoyable, you can see me reading notes cuz im used to scripted content without my face but ugh
Chapters:
0:00 Funky Fresh Intro
1:18 "The Secret is the World Can Only Work When Everything Works Together"
2:55 We All See The World Through Our Own Little Lenses
5:30 Wait This is a Children's Song?
6:00 What Does Socko Represent?
7:05 History Being Taught Through A Nationalistic Lens
9:18 How to Constructively Question the School System
11:05 Comrade Socko is a Marxist
11:55 The Global Division of Labor Introduction
13:05 Colonial Conquest in the Global Division of Labor
14:35 How the Global South is Exploited and effects the Means of Production
15:45 How I would Rephrase Socko's Point
16:27 Private Property Being Theft
17:35 Neoliberal Facism Destroying the Left?
18:35 Right Wing Populist Movements
19:25 Neoliberal Revolution 1980 and It's Critique's
21:08 Socko Teaches Us Not To Use Jargon
22:10 Let's Try To Understand Socko Anyway
23:00 Try Not To Identify So Strongly With Labels
24:20 Cops and Politicians are what now? | Talking about Generalizations
27:10 Critiquing Individual Moral And Character
27:50 Genocide
28:50 Socko is Accusatory about Socio Political Conflicts
29:53 "Mypopic Lens of Your Own Self Actualization"
33:15 How Could This Interaction Be Improved
35:50 Bo Taking Advantage of His Position of Power & Virtue Signaling
37:35 How The Conversation Ends
HewwoReese Socials!
Gaming UA-cam Channel: / hewworeese
Podcast: www.hewworeese.com/episodes
Instagram: / hewworeese
Twitch: / hewworeese
TikTok & Twitter: @HewwoReese_ (yup, an underscore at the end)
ReeseGrey.com
Affiliate Links SOVEREIxN Street Wear! Use code: hewworeese for 25% OFF!!! sovereixn.com/
I got the confusion x controller in pink hehe
This gets really heavy, and deals with very complicated emotions. If you need to reach out and talk to anyone here are some links that may help you. If anyone is uncomfortable talking to anyone in your immediate social circle, there is a national anonymous hotline in most countries. For the US, it's 1-800-273-8255 Here's a full list of all mental health/suicide hotlines: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_...
#videoessay #boburnham #boburnhaminside #boburnhamreaction #musicreview #musicreaction #songanalysis #philosophy #culture #identity #socko #neoliberal #commentary #commentaryvideos #commentaryvideos #analysis #analyzing
My Social Studies teacher was a retired military interrogator during the Cold War & is by far my favorite teacher. He openly said "this is what I'm told to teach you, but this is what actually happened" He & I used to talk together n debate after class all the time. He also told us our class used to be called "Citizenship Indoctrination". I loved him for his honesty and willingness to point out where the brainwashing was in our curriculum
I haven’t even finished the video but I just had to pause it to tell you how refreshing it is to FINALLY see someone who actually understands the neo-liberal fascists line. Ever single reaction I’ve seen people have no clue what neo-liberalism is and think it means far left. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve screamed at my phone “that’s not what that means!” and then stopped watching. Lol
Haha!!! Oh my gosh, I've seen a lot of reactions that assume a lottt about the certain jargon-y words in this song. I totally understand why though, as these definitions can be super confusing, even to me who has studied this stuff a bit. Thanks for taking the time to comment, it's super encouraging to know someone appreciates the definitions!~ I even left some sources in the description in case my explanations were kinda rough or confusing :) hehe, much love & appreciation to ya!
Absolutely true, if coming from an economic theory perspective, which I understand that this video would be. That said, there is another modern definition/usage of the term neoliberal which has nothing to do with the econ nomenclature; rather, it points to one of two groups of modern liberals - either the "PC Police"/SJW types who tend to adhere to "proper labeling" to a militant degree and who have a bad habit of enforcing their own moral prerogative upon others to the extent of creating the "cancel culture" we often see referenced, or to the "fake liberals" or "liberals in name only" who are often like Reese so astutely characterized Bo's character in this video, often guilty of virtue signaling and wanting to seem like the open-minded and accepting liberal ideal but usually becoming defensive or bitter when confronted with the idea that they are possibly part of the problem.
I would've just let this comment pass without response, but I've seen quite a few folks in reaction videos exasperated over "incorrect" usage of the term neoliberal, and the idea of the term having one sole correct usage to the exclusion of others is having a similarly exasperating effect on me and I had to get this out. If we were in an Econ or Poli Sci classroom in a university or similar setting, I'd understand the desire to correct that, as it would likely be an incorrect usage due to the situational context in which it was being said. But out of all the videos I've seen breaking this song down, this is the only one doing so in that framework, with all others being either from a different field's perspective or being a general "react" kind of video. Taking that into account, it would actually be incorrect from a linguistic standpoint to say that the alternative definition is wrong, simply because common usage of any term in a particular way inherently validates that as a possible meaning. If it were one commenter or reactor using it that way, sure, it'd probably be fine to correct that. But even just seeing the amount of folks who use the term in that way in reaction videos, one would be right to assume this to be common usage in modern parlance, and thus it would correctly be considered perfectly acceptable usage in an informal setting outside the context of sociopolitical/economic discussion or debate. It is understandable to feel the urge to "correct" that, and I am often guilty of it myself, despite extensive linguistic study on my part. But it is important to remember that textbook/dictionary definitions do not decide correct usage, but rather usage which creates definitions and the validity of said meaning. As much as I've tried to fight it over the years, "literally" can absolutely mean "figuratively" in common speech and that is a completely valid use of the word, whether I like it or not (even if it does make my eye twitch a bit every time I hear it used that way), and every dictionary I've seen has rightly augmented their definition list to include it. After all, if it is universally accepted for some words to have multiple disparate (and often contradictory) definitions, why would any other be an exception to that rule?
All that said, I agree with the rest of the comment: this was a fantastic video, and I really enjoyed the deep-dive into the implications of this excellent work of art that Mr. Burnham produced for us. I learned a lot, and It gave me a lot of new perspectives to consider! Thank you for the excellent content, and my thanks also to the original commenter for being passionate enough about the content to make your voice heard and to share your views and feelings on it.
@@seansinger640 This is an excellent point! I see how picking apart language & being a stickler for definitions can actually be harmful to having good conversations. I can definitely improve my own communication by considering that more.
When it comes to linguistics "sole correct usage" as you mention would define neoliberal with a different contradictory meaning to the definition compared to how an academic would define the same term. Sadly, I think this is what causes this distrust in academics, because people define words off of preconceived notions of words/concepts *already* known, instead of learning more deeper, nuanced, complex concepts... Then academics (and in some cases SJW types) stand very steadfast to the academic definition, not accepting or trying to understand the more general understanding of how an academic term is used in the "real world". It's tricky because neither is "wrong" as you mention. And to echo you, if it is universally acceptable to entertain multiple meanings of colloquial language ex: "thirsty, hot, cool", why do we hold academic language as an exception to that rule?
Excellent point from a linguistic perspective that I didn't consider, since I don't have a background in that. Thank you so much for taking the time to share such an insightful & valuable tidbit. Much love to ya 💕 I'm going to try and do a deep dive on this type of subject for sure, hopefully I do it justice.
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes bo was using words that could be sung together melodically to get us to the end where he was going to show us how the world works and you know what he did.
I agree. Definitely refreshing. I've seen plenty of other reactors who are essentially apolitical and just trying to get engagement on their channel have equal reactions to far right content creators and this song. They're like "Yo this song is FACTS!" but they just said the same thing about some Daily Wire thing the week before. It's just coming from a place of ignorance and just trying to keep spewing content out that is popular, if that makes sense.
Hey Reese,
I consider myself a Bo Burnham music video reaction enthusiast, in that I would literally watch a rock react to them. This is one of my favorite ones. Keep it up! :D
On the “Separating the worker from the means of production” line. I took it as this: “The means of production are produced by workers, but completely controlled by owners. The more we, the workers, produce, the more productive power there is for someone else to own and control.”
That’s quoted from Asher Horowitz | Department of Political Science | Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies | York University
That originally comes from Marx though. He is basically the founding father of criticizing capitalism.
As a historian, something I noticed that might even slip by someone with politicial science is that almost everything in the song are points taken from Karl Marx, mostly from Das Kapital.
I've genuinely seen people claim this song isn't political or socialist which cracks me up cause it so obviously is.
Before I jump into the meat of my comment, I just want to echo what many others are saying. The level of analysis that you brought into this video is a breath of fresh air. Not only because so many people who react to the song either laugh along without any critical thinking or misunderstand the points that are being made, but also because you've sparked a new understanding of many of these lines for me personally. It feels like I'm back in a college classroom having a critical discussion.
Nearly all the disagreements or hesitation I found myself experiencing during your analysis have been addressed in the wonderful comments here. The only point where I somewhat disagree and that I haven't seen represented is that I think its possible to put a little more stock into the "...neoliberal fascists are destroying the left!" line than you gave Socko credit for. One prime example, historically speaking, of this phenomenon is the rise of the Nazi party in Weimar Germany during the 1920s & 30s. Obviously this is before Neoliberalism has been fully defined, but the varied capitalist interests seeking an unfettered market in that period were so bent on destroying the growing socialist bloc (i.e. "the left") that they helped support the ultra-conservative and fascist parties. This was explicitly done so that they could reduce the influence of the powerful unions.
That being said, I think many of your critiques of Socko's argument here stand. Although I would argue that modern neoliberal capitalists very much tend towards supporting the conservative wing of politics here in the USA, I think this is more a consequence of the Neoliberal Revolution setting the status quo in the 80s, and because the nature of conservative politics lends itself to keeping the status quo. Although many of these same interests threw their support behind conservative populism in the 2016 election, it has become clear that the modern American fascist movement is just as hostile to corporate interference in politics as they are to politically left leaning ideas generally. I think this points more generally to a neoliberal elite that does have political interests, but finds that a balancing act is more profitable then throwing its lot into destroying one ideology. I think Socko is definitely engaging in some hyperbole and leaning into some buzzwords here.
As a final thought, in my eyes, fascists in the US are still absolutely trying to "destroy the left". Look any anything Ron Desantis has said in the past few months about having killed wokeness and liberalism in Florida. Republican supermajorities across the country have been actively passing laws making it harder for traditionally democratic leaning populations to vote (minorities and youth). While Socko is certainly not being fully honest in his critique, there is still some validity to be found there.
I enjoyed this analysis and response of this song more than any other I’ve seen yet. It was so very informative and insightful.
My favorite point in your comments was that in the conflict between Socko and Bo, Socko’s use of hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric and jargon is coming from a place of inherent “inferiority” because of the power imbalance. Regardless of the validity of Socko’s complaints, the nature of their relationship makes it incredibly difficult for either of them to feel like they’re equals having a discussion
How much animosity built up over time because Socko (or any oppressed group he may represent) can only have his very valid complaints heard and (rarely) listened to on the whims of those in power (Bo)? Bo deliberately gives hints at how frequently he and socko talk, with lines like “where ya been?” And “I’ve been where I always am when you’re not wearing me” I get the sense that this isn’t the first time they’ve gone through this kind of conversation.
On a smaller scale to me it’s kinda like when a child starts thinking independently of their parents, and every argument gets heated very quickly because of the psychological burden of trying to confront this authority who taught you right from wrong (gave you the systems you live in).
Maybe I’m reading into it too much. Loved the video! Subscribed!
Awh, thanks so much, I'm so glad you enjoyed this, I really enjoyed making this! 💕
I've listened to this song so much and I've never picked up on Bo & Socko's familiarity, that's brilliant! And comparing that to the power imbalance of a child & parent too I think is spot on. I totally agree. I was trying to figure out what might be causing that feeling of immediate intensity between the two, and that close relationship is totally it.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment~
The global system of capital line is about how capitalism promoves alienation of work. It is a simpler and more straight forward idea than you think. Basically, the corporativist investor ecosystem, by definition, separates the worker class from the means of prodution and submissive to exploitation by an owner class.
Also "private property" refers specifically to means of production. Your house, if you own and live in it, is personal property, not private. Its inherit theft to own the means of production privately because it means you can restrict the workers of access to it, and force them to enter a exploitative relationship. You extract value from their work without working yourself, simoly from owning the stuff (including but not limited to land) needed to make the work possible.
I take the "neoliberalist fascism is destroying the left" to be a reference to the shift the overton window. Basically, the more extreme to right discurse gets, the more center the left is pulled.
About the generalization part, I think you get the idea but miss the point a bit. An individual cop or politician might have the best of intentions, but they STILL protect the interests of corporate elites, because that's inherent to those holes in society. Police in particular exist specifically as state monopoly on violence to protect private property.
A lot of it is reworded quotes from Karl Marx on his messages about oppression and alienation of workers.
I respect the fact that you didn’t do what most people reacting to this song do, which is fully side with socko (and selectively ignore not only parts of what he’s saying, but how he’s saying it). I think the tendency is to assume that this song is only about oppressor vs oppressed, but there’s much more complexity here.
Thanks so much! I really enjoyed doing this analysis:) I agree with you, super complex & there's countless ways to interpret the song~
I have seen people misinterpret it in the exact opposite way, siding with Bo ("that's what you get! don't bite the hand that feeds you!"). In the face of that, I understand wanting to be clear that you see the injustice portrayed/represented by the song and are on the side of the oppressed. Unfortunately, that leaves very little room for nuanced discussion of the song and its messaging, and how a conversation like this could actually happen constructively instead.
@ReeseGreyAnalyzes Just because there is multiple ways to interpret something doesn't mean those ways are correct or even useful however. Open thought doesn't mean every thought is right or a good one. A good balance of realism and philosophy is better than going too far into either one.
Hey Reese! I'm really enjoying this analysis (23 minutes in so far)! I just have a couple things to point out.
When Socko mentions the "global network of capital," I interpreted that as literally money. Whereby large corporations, oligarchs, etc. use wages - usually extremely low wages - to keep a tight grip on the production of goods that they can then sell at a huge profit. They also exploit governments and law to keep this tight grip, but that's another conversation...
"Separating the workers from the means of production" to me means that if more of these companies were co-ops or the like, the workers would get a much larger portion of the money (capital). Maybe I'm being a bit too generous in my interpretation there, but just thought I'd share.
Also, the "neo-liberal fascists are destroying the left" concept I took a bit differently. Yes, your definition of neo-liberalism is spot on and, as another commenter said, the only reactor that has gotten it right (that I've seen). However, I took this to mean that, at least in the US, the political "left" has traditionally been held by the Democrats (after the switch), and that party has been taken over by neo-liberals since the 80s (as you rightly pointed out). And since then, they have fought harder against challengers from the further political left than against the political right wing. So, essentially, the fake left is destroying the actual political left.
Just a bit different interpretation.
Anyway, amazing content!
EDIT: Holy crap, I should have waited to comment...
The "pedophilic corporate elite" line was one of the more controversial in the song, and I think that was the point. Your analysis was very good, and I agree that there are a lot of people in government and law enforcement that think they are doing good while unwittingly upholding "evil" things as you put it.
Your analysis of the back and forth between Bo and Socko at the end of the video was brilliant! So good! I also see this as an extension of the neo-liberals destroying the left. Bo was virtue signaling as you point out, and when the actual leftist got out of line, he was destroyed.
You have a new subscriber.
Hey there :) It makes me so happy to hear you enjoyed this! & Thank you so much for taking the time to leave a thoughtful and encouraging comment.
I appreciate your interpretation of the "global network of capital" literally meaning: money. Instead of the institutions that create/exploit to make that money as I interpreted it as.
And I gotta say, I totally agree with how you interpret how neoliberalism is destroying the left. Your explanation broke it down really simply considering the United States on a national scale. With my explanation, I wanted to consider more global issues. As neoliberalism isn't only a "leftist" issue, it's a global issue. Global south countries, where raw materials and "cheap unskilled labor" are, are exploited for material gain (for the elite mostly) in global north countries. Though I completely agree with the sentiment neoliberalism is destroying the "actual" left as you mentioned, Bo & Socko's conversation was leaving out a really huge chunk of people who are left exploited (on a global scale). And since the title is "How The World Works" it made me a bit sad, haha. But your interpretation too makes 100% sense considering US politics, and honestly makes more sense contextually with the rest of the song/Bo & Socko's relationship.
Bo's character virtue signaling only to destroy Socko at the end absolutely broke my heart. I didn't consider it being a parallel to neoliberalism as you mentioned, that's actually a fantastic way to view that too.
It makes me so happy to hear you subscribed & will be adventuring with me later! Thoughtful comments like this really make my day. Thank you
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes "I appreciate your interpretation of the "global network of capital" literally meaning: money. Instead of the institutions that create/exploit to make that money as I interpreted it as."
It's a super narrow distinction, and I get that. I just thought it fits better with the second half of the phrase. But you have a far better understanding of these mechanisms on a global scale than I do, and everything you said made sense. I just haven't spent a lot of time studying the global side of this. I should, though... heh
"As neoliberalism isn't only a "leftist" issue, it's a global issue. Global south countries, where raw materials and "cheap unskilled labor" are, are exploited for material gain (for the elite mostly) in global north countries. Though I completely agree with the sentiment neoliberalism is destroying the "actual" left as you mentioned, Bo & Socko's conversation was leaving out a really huge chunk of people who are left exploited (on a global scale)."
Agreed. Again, your global knowledge shines here and is super educational, so thank you for that. My view of it is colored by the fact that both Bo and I are from the US, and it just made more sense to me that way.
"Bo's character virtue signaling only to destroy Socko at the end absolutely broke my heart."
Right? :(
Bo has a lot of very insightful yet entertaining stuff. I'm not sure how much you've watched/listened to, but it's a journey for sure.
Thanks for the awesome response, and I can't wait to see what you do next!
The "switch" of the parties is a myth, by the way. None of the Republicans, during the time frame of the claim, switched to the Democratic Party, and only a couple Dems switched to the Republican Party. The Republican Party was literally formed to end slavery, and the Democratic Party consisted of the Confederacy fighting to keep slavery. Another example to show that it's a myth: 150 years ago, the Dems wanted to prevent personhood rights to the slaves; today, Dems want to prevent personhood rights to the unborn. Same political philosophy of wanting to PREVENT expanding rights, just a different target.
I totally agree with this comment. Although it's great that @Reese Grey Analyzes tried to analyse this song from a more global perspective, I however don't think that's how this song should be analysed. To me this song seems to be written from the american perspective and be focused on american politics specifically so it should also be analysed that way.
I think you're totally right in your interpretation of "global network of capital" as just money. And this money, together with private property, functions to separate the worker from the means of production. Meaning most of the means of production are owned by the wealthy elite who use these to exploit the workers.
Your second point of "neoliberal facist are destroying the left" also seems very decent to me. Where Reese tries to use a global perspective, you use a more US focused one which to me makes more sense. I would however add that he might not only be referring to the shift to neoliberalism in the 80s but also to more recent practices by neoliberal Democrats.
Firstly I would argue that the term neoliberal fascist might point to the economically neoliberal Democrats that also seem to support a more authoritarian state (the ones who keep voting for increasing the military budget and also keep enforcing a kind of police state by increasing police budgets without implementing any radical police reform).
Secondly I would argue that the "are ruining the left" lyric might be referring to the practice of neoliberal democratic leadership fighting against popular leftist ideas/ mass movements in the past years. One of the first major examples of this was of course the vocal support of Hilary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in 2016. But maybe the most important one I would say was the coöpting of the black lives matter movement by these neoliberal politicians without actually making the big policy changes this movement asked for. There is a saying that goes: "the Democratic Party is where social movements go to die" and I think that is the kind of sentiment where this lyric comes from.
I have a thought on what "the neo-liberal fascists are destroying the left," could mean:
I think it means that international capital has become so powerful because THEY have been given the "freedom" to do whatever they want (in exchange for "jobs and growth"), that the PEOPLE'S tool, governments, have been rendered powerless to reign them in.
You see it when governments try and do something. The capitalist elite just jack up prices, hinders unionization or send people into unemployment, as revenge. They can do this because they are CONSOLIDATED internationally into a stronger force than national governments .. And if the national governments demand "too much," capital just moves to a more compliant nation (read: a more desperate nation), and then they get what they want.
When many in the working classes see this, they turn fascist themselves. The argument being that the left is "all talk, no solutions" and they got inflation and lack of decent jobs to help them come to that conclusion ..
By the way when Bo said "Every single cricket, every fish in the sea gives what they can and takes what they need" at the beginning that is from a popular slogan from Marx, "From each according to their ability to each according to their need."
Previous comments being said, thank you for deep-diving into this piece, I love it and hope you keep doing what you're doing! :)
Aw! Thank you so so much for watching & for the encouragement 💕
When I hear “private property is inherently theft” I have always equated it to the labor theory of value. That is, through private ownership of the means of production, the value or profit that a worker produces through their labor is split and the majority goes to the owners of the means of production. Thus, workers not receiving the full value of their labor is inherently theft.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (French anarchist) coined "Property is theft" in the 1800s. His book "What is Property" is a great read.
1. This was awesome, it's so refreshing to see someone just take the time to unpack Socko's message.
2. How is the subscribe number so low here! What! Can't wait for more videos from you
Aw :) thank you so very much! It was so much fun to make hehe 💕💕💕
This is an absolutely fantastic analysis. I genuinely loved every moment (though the copyright issue at the end was awkward - though I understand it was necessary). You have an incredible depth of knowledge and understanding of the topics, but also have an excellent way of explaining that to those who do not have a similar level of understanding.
I think that Socko point about "Separate the Worker from the means of production" is related to the fact that we the workers do not own the means of production, so we get to work in it but we own "nothing".
Your perspective is refreshing. Most notably your emphasis on being open minded during critical thinking and avoiding overly relying on labels. Well done!
I think the 'means of production' line was meant in the traditional, 'workers get the shaft, executives get the steak' simplistic type of meaning... I love your explanation, but I think you went deeper than Bo in this case ;)
"means of production" is a common phrase in Marxist critique. It's not about what the worker *gets* it's about preventing workers from owning the factories / tools.
The next line is "private property is inherently theft". In Marxism, "private" property is literally the property owned by capitalists, not the working class. If you own your own house, it is "personal" property, not "private" property. "Private" property would be the factory that someone owns, along with all of the tools and conveyor belts, et cetera in the factory.
Capitalists prevent workers from owning these factories and tools, is the line, hence, preventing workers from keeping the value they produce (the unsaid portion).
@@SeanJMay Any employee can start their own business at anytime, but as soon as they do, they'd be considered a capitalist, so it's a sliding definition.
@@franquil85conn sure, but really only by means of semantics; the criticism was levied at people who don't actually need to do anything, and can just sit there becoming more rich by virtue of already being rich, where that richness comes from the labor of others, which is essentially taxed by the owner, by virtue of ownership.
So a landlord that owns 5 properties, and the rent not only pays for the mortgages, but generates sufficient income, so as to not need to work, would apply, and a chair on the board of directors who shows up for 5 meetings a year, and is swimming in dividends would apply, but a guy who has his own roofing company, or someone who has their own company knitting sweaters for pets, wouldn't ... until they get to the point where they need to do literally nothing but own the tax ID, or own a bunch of shares.
It wasn't really a stab at people who need to participate in capitalism, because if people don't want to starve, that's the only option. Likewise, it's not a castigation of making and selling a product or service, as markets and bartering vastly predate capitalism... essentially we just replaced one form of feudalism with another, within 100 years of the French Revolution.
@Sean May but that's what's wrong with this anti capitalist agenda. I can start a business and I'm not hated unless I become successful enough to own multiple businesses.....doesn't matter that maybe I mortgaged my house to start the first one taking a chance on my dream, knowing that if I failed I've lost my life savings...doesn't matter that I put payroll on a credit card and ate Ramen noodles every night trying to get the business off the ground....only when I finally become successful that it's inherently bad.....am mom and pop store is fine until it becomes Mrs. Mom and Pop stores that it's evil?!? That is disingenuous as hell. If I start a business, the employees I hire have no skin in the game...if I fail they find a new job and I'm left without a home and in bankruptcy....I work with a buddy that owns multiple properties. While everyone else was wasting their money, he saved and bought his first house, fixed it up and rented it out...10 years later, he has multiple units and is about to leave his job as he now makes enough to support his family...why is this bad? The renters can't afford to buy, so if he didn't invest, they wouldn't have a home or at least this home, why is a voluntary transaction evil in your eyes? I guess he should have just pissed his money away instead of investing
@@franquil85conn Many employees *cannot* start their own business any time. When you're not making a lot of money, the cost just to start a business is huge and the upfront cost of any supplies or tools that are needed can be an impossible price to those laborers.
Additionally, the entire idea of separating the worker from the means of production would prevent those individuals from actually gaining any expertise on their specific field. Take, for example, the iconic assembly lines in the automotive industry. You might have a laborer who works 30 years at a plant building vehicles, but they only ever had very specific roles such as affixing a logo or zipping up the seat cushion. Nothing they did during that career gives them any actual marketable skills, so they DON'T have the ability to just go out and start a business, despite being a lifetime contributor to a massive industry. They've been separated from the actual means of production.
Amazing reaction! Loved the video Subscribed!
I'm only about 2 minutes and 20 seconds into the video and I'm already shocked at just how much sense you're making. This probably won't be my only comment.
You’re smart. ♥️ loved listening to your thoughts on this!
thank you so much 💕💕💕
Amazing analysis, best ive seen so far about this particular video! You got new subscriber :)
I appreciate you so much for being here 💕 glad to see this still gets around after almost a year ❤️
Ok, less than 4 minutes in and this is already one of the best videos I've ever seen.
Aww!!! Thanks for leaving so many nice comments 💕 I appreciate you, and I'm so glad you enjoyed!
Just wanted to say real quick, I've watched a lot of Inside reactions, and Bo reactions in general. And this was one of the most interesting and educational. If you do more polsci edutainment like this, I'll be watching more polsci edutainment like this. 🎉
This was an amazing video where i learned a lot, so thank you :]
yaaaaaay so glad you enjoyed it 💕
Because of your analysis, i now see a deeper layer to the song.
Its a song about working together where neither side of the "argument" works together.
You ended it perfectly! It was on pause and you were saying "In the end you get..." Then you unpaused for Socko's obvious suicide, and say "...that!"
Really enjoyed all the info, thank you!
Yaaaaaay so glad you enjoyed 💕
I loved the deep dive and found it interesting because no one else I’ve seen myself included really vocalized their criticism of socko’s communication style one thing I’d like to add is that the way socko makes his points reminds me of someone preaching to the choir like he’s speaking in a way that people who share his beliefs will agree and actively antagonizes people who don’t understand or disagree. While still making valid points he fails to effectively communicate them to his current audience
For “private property being theft,” I think Bo may be referring to the philosophical argument that the concept of ownership itself is inherently theft. I wasn’t sure if that’s what you were getting at here or not.
Ah, for sure! I totally agree that Bo was referring to the philosophical concept of private property ownership being inherently theft. I should have mentioned in the video that I was trying to denote the difference between private property & personal property! :) When I mentioned "private property isn't a thing for most people" I left out "because most people only have personal property". Private property is used to get profit or produce something exclusively, and the average person doesn't profit on their property. I was attempting to denote how private property effects people differently. I see how I get ramble-y in this part of the video and I could seem super confusing ahhhhhhh lol. But yea, I totally agree with you.
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes I think it's a really great video and I really like the way you deep-dive into the topics. Thank you!
@@satoristeve Aw, thanks so much for your encouragement, and THANK YOU for watching & taking the time to comment!
Socko is directly paraphrasing the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:
"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to remove a man's mind, will, and personality, is the power of life and death, and that it makes a man a slave. It is murder. Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?"
For people wanting to learn more, look up "What is Property?" by Proudhon
My smoothbrain could not make sense of the myopic lens part. That totally makes sense. I figured it had something to do with making it about themselves but never really picked up the difference between someone living it, and someone using that persons struggles to "make themselves a better person."
For sure! I'm def guilty too of viewing struggles I can't directly empathize with but only sympathize with, through a myopic lens like Bo too. I think that's where the platitude of "be grateful for what you have" comes from.
I guess maybe as humans, since we can't experience everything but only our little bubble of things, there should be a type of grace we should extend, even when evaluating more privileged people...
I know I'm kinda going off the rails but your comment made me think of that haha. Thanks for taking the time to comment 💕
Honestly a good example of why anarchists, socialists and communists often fail to bring people in. We're confrontational, we use jargon from century-old books written by authors in specific places and times (Marx and Engels were writing in Victorian England, Proudhon in post-Napoleonic France, and Sankara wrote in post-colonial Burkina Faso, the conditions of those places in those times obviously influenced them and are not directly transferable).
Every line can be simplified in this song, but it isn't, and i think it is deliberate. Something as simple as "your boss makes money by screwing you out of the true value of your work" becomes this twisted pile of loosely-defined terms that the average person who actually lives those conditions won't understand, and won't have the time or energy to learn because they're working 60 hour weeks and just trying to feed their kids, they're exhausted and have bigger things to worry about than interpretations of Lenin's writing.
Beautifully said!!!
I grew up in Canada and nothing was intentionally omitted from history classes. We learned about all aspects of our country, the good and the horrible. In England I know history classes there also covers almost all English history, good and bad. So there's 2 examples of countries that don't bias their own history to make it look better. So it doesn't happen "everywhere" even though it does happen in certain places.
With one of the main points I’m very happy I have been able to learn in a private school, it may sound privileged but I have been taught the raw facts about history, I have had many history teachers who didn’t care nor tried to bias the info towards my country, and my schools main focus is to teach facts and for the students to build their own ideas and feelings towards the issues they learn. This is something I’m truly proud about
since i forever obsess over this song and you are the first person i've ever seen actually take a stab at critically analyzing it instead of ducking around any possibly political or controversial topics (and doing it very well, i might add), i'm taking the opportunity to share my extensive thoughts about specifically the _"neoliberal fascists are destroying the left"_ line, even though there are many other comments that have already done the same thing. i'm also going to take a much more U.S. centered approach to this line, because despite the title, this song has a lot of things that make the most sense through this lens rather than a global one. as you mentioned, the idea of neoliberalism had an epic shift in the U.S. through the 60s and 70s, resulting in a center left that supported free market capitalism, dysregulation, and the early fascist ideology of corporatism through the 80s up until now. as far as fascism in this context, it's an ideal built on authoritarian dictatorship - this title along side neoliberalism is meant to point out the inherent hypocrisy in the idea that you can be a leftist AND a neoliberal. neoliberal fascists, these "center-left" capitalists, are destroying the left by deteriorating what the left actually is and creating a complete upheaval of the entire ideological structure. the democratic party, notoriously the liberal party after the switch, is taken over by neoliberal fascists, and the conservatives are left unscathed, leaving no room in a two party system for the genuine left and their liberal ideologies. the overton window has been shifted so far right that the center-left, these neoliberal fascists tearing the liberals to shreds from the inside out, are being called the radical left. this line is a critique of the way the two party system has allowed conservative ideology to contaminate both sides of the field to the point a true leftist candidate is so unlikely to be elected into office that the leftist democratic slogan for the 2020 election was "settle for biden."
with my rant out of the way, i really appreciated your analysis, especially since you made a point to focus on a global scale rather than a strictly american one. i'm definitely a fan and subscriber, thank you so much for your insight!
Wait... in the 1980s the government stepped back from aiding unions? Hell, it started busting them itself!
OMG ur not wrong tho 👀 lol!!!
I'm late to the party but I have to say, out of the many reactions I've seen to this song, this deep dive is my absolute favorite!
Aww 💕 I really appreciate that!
Following for exactly this specific type of deep content. My take on this song is that Socko is using sweeping generalizations to counter the same type of content coming from the Far Right.
Do you feel that method would be productive, or is there more strategic and Sociological value in a different approach?
If so, what would that look like?
Ooh! This is a super interesting question, I go into that a little bit at 33:18. But to answer more specifically, sweeping generalizations are definitely counter productive to conversations. You're diluting someone's beliefs usually into some type of stereotype or broad overarching philosophy of "the other" that is usually painted by news/other popular media. Generalizations cause more divide than anything, and it doesn't allow people to learn and grow within conversations. Mostly because it leads the person who is being generalized to feel attacked and defensive. What's best instead is to ask WHY people think what they believe, not assume you know. But the other issue is Socko even got frustrated saying "don't burden me with the responsibility of educating you". It's almost as if both people in the situation are more concerned about their own "self actualization" (as Socko himself mentions) or seeming smart/intelligent/valuable in the moment instead of having a genuine conversation where they learn and grow from each other. Socko is hypocritical and Bo is ignorant, but that doesn't mean either is a bad person or that a meaningful conversation couldn't have happened after this. But, that's also what makes this conversation so tragic, as it's a reminder at so many people's failure to communicate, and how we're missing so much from each other because people aren't trained to talk WITH each other but to instead against each other to prove our own beliefs and villainize those who think differently.
If you're more interested in more communication strategies, I suggest Stevan Hassan's book "Combatting Cult Mind Control" where he as a mental health professional, helps people uncover reasoning behind their behavior, and practice thought and emotional control. There is also an INCREDIBLE book by Cailin O'Connor, James Owen Weatherall called "The Misinformation Age" where they explain how false beliefs spread and how to recognize and combat false beliefs both within yourself and how to help someone realize they hold a false belief. Thanks for your awesome question!
Ok... last point... our 'left' in the USA would be on par with moderates, or slightly left of center in most first world countries... A good example, I think is Macron - in France he is a centrist, but here he would be derided as a card-carrying communist in our current US politics... just for sounding vaguely reasonable. Over the last 50 years, the 'liberals' in the US have constantly chased the right, to where we have 2 parties... far right, and centrist... I think that is what is meant by destroying the left
Numerous studies debunk your premise of the left chasing the right. All you have to do is look at the Overton Window to see that's it the opposite of what you claim.
@@TheKyfe - you're confusing the sideshow with what really matters. I'm not talking idiotic social issues that green haired kids at Berkeley are tweeting about from their safe spaces, I'm talking economics. The Overton window on economic discourse in this country is much farther right than any other 'first world' nation.
@@jduncanandroid economics is also moving further away from free market capitalism. It's becoming a strange mix of corporatism and fascism (and I'm talking the economic fascism, not the political. Companies are taking their marching orders from the government), so it's still the right chasing the left...
@@TheKyfe - I disagree completely, corporatism and economic fascism are both authoritarian right principles, as opposed to laissez-faire capitalism, which is libertarian right. The concerns of workers barely equate in this country since Reagan destroyed the workers movements in the '80s, and the Dems let them.
In the mid 1970s, the Dems decided to dump labor overboard and go for tech and white collar... blue collar America has had only lip service at best over the last 40 years, which is why they bought Trump's BS hook, line, and sinker.
Yooooo how did I end up here this is awesome.
11:55 I believe Bo was just making the good ol point "the (mine owners) did not find the gold, they did mine the gold, they did not mill the gold but by some wierd alchemy (Ie the global network of capital)all the glod belongs to them" big bill haywood
So, Marxist-Leninist here. Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Sockoist Thought. Anyway, I really enjoyed your analysis, and I really think Bo Burnham is a genius, because he has managed to get people who otherwise would never even have considered these ideas to even have these discussions in the first place, and I love it. These are discussions that we absolutely need to have, and the survival of our species as a whole depends on it at this point, what with the total failure of capital to address the climate crisis. That being said, I do have some things to add, and also some things to correct. It's entirely not your fault, because you can't really expect anyone who hasn't actually sat down to read Marxist theory to have a full grasp of it, and most people in the imperial core (the West, if you prefer) haven't even considered the idea of hearing any of these authors out due to how villainized they are by the very history classes that Comrade Socko is talking about. Hopefully this will help you and anyone else who stumbles upon this comment to understand how we think, even if you don't necessarily agree. Ideally, maybe even help even a few people to understand that we aren't the pure-evil, power-lusting authoritarians we're made out to be, and that Marxist ideas are worth at least considering.
1. Just wanted to start out by pointing out the absolute genius that is the entire song before the appearance of Socko. What Bo is doing here is incredibly subtle, and I imagine only the Marxists actually noticed. Bo is essentially describing how nature works in a dialectical materialist way, putting great emphasis on how things that are dialectically opposed to one another work together in order to drive the processes that govern our world, like the gophers in the earth and the birds in the sky, the dialectic here being a creature of the earth and a creature of the sky. Basically, everything is interconnected, nothing is static, things are always changing in relation to everything else, and the contradictions of nature are what drive basically our whole world. He even ends it off by rephrasing "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" at the end (Gives what they can, gets what they need), which is just *mwah.* Bo Burnham is a genius. The Marxist theory is already in the spotlight, and most people haven't even noticed yet. Everything that Socko/Marx says basically comes from applying this kind of scientific, dialectical materialist analysis that most people can almost intuitively apply to the natural world to human history, society, and political economy. In fact, you will often hear Marxists defend and uphold Marxism's status as a science, and how it continue to function as the best scientific analysis of history, society, and political economy despite many, many unsuccessful attempts by capital to dethrone it's status as such.
I also love how this segment led to you considering how one's material conditions can affect their perspective of how they see the world. This is essentially exactly what ontological, philosophical materialism asserts. Unlike philosophical idealism, which essentially states that the ideas and/or consciousness of humanity determines what happens in material reality, materialism asserts that material reality shapes our ideas and our consciousness.
Dialectics is a whole other topic that I don't really want to get into for the sake of brevity, but there is plenty of great educational content on this topic for those interested like this video by Marxist Paul ( ua-cam.com/video/nZXaZHe901w/v-deo.html ) or, if you can stomach reading these authors and hearing them out, "Dialectics of Nature" by Friedrich Engels, "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" by Joseph Stalin, and "On Contradiction" by Mao Tse-tung are all great reads for developing your understanding of this topic, and all of them can be found for free on Marxists.org or in audiobook form on Socialism For All's UA-cam channel. I guarantee that Bo has read at least one of these. If I had to guess, it was probably the one by Engels.
Lastly, there is the topic of historical materialism, which is basically a dialectical materialist analysis of the history of human society, which says that the history of human society is the history of class struggle and that history is driven by the dominant mode of production of any given time period. This applies to more than just capitalism, mind you. Historical materialists call the time period from the dawn of civilization to the fall of Rome "slave society," meaning that the dominanant class conflict was between master and slave. Nations of the time period like Rome would go to war with neighboring lands to acquire slaves who would do all the work for the benefit of the masters, and in return, the masters would provide the slaves with the bare necessities to maintain their ability to do labor. After the fall of Rome for the duration of the Dark/Middle Ages up to the late 1700s, the dominant mode of production was feudalism, where the primary class conflict was between the nobility and the serfs. The nobles would own the land, and often even the people who worked on it, who were the serfs, and while the serfs were allowed to work for themselves for some of the year, the had to basically give free labor to the nobility for the other part of the year. And after the late 1700s with the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars, the dominant mode of production became capitalism.
2. I think what you came up with for the reason Bo chose Socko as his medium for the rest of the song is interesting in it's own way, but I don't think that's why Bo chose to use a sock puppet. I think the whole "sleep paralysis" thing was just a warning from Bo that this is about to get deep and uncomfortable. Rather, the reason Bo chose Socko as his medium because of the relationship that he and Socko have, which is that Bo has total power over Socko. It displays a sort of class conflict where Bo can be seen as belonging to the "puppetmaster" class, and Socko is part of the "puppet" class. Both have interests that are in conflict with one another and determine the social dynamic between Bo and Socko, which is meant to parallel the theory of class struggle in Marxism.
3. The argument that the narrative taught in history classes is nationalist is absolutely correct, and I won't argue that, but what Socko is focusing on in his telling of this is the class lens. Basically, Socko is saying that the narrative taught in every history class serves the class interests of the ruling class of our society. Under capitalism, that would be the bourgeoisie, or the capitalist class, if you prefer. Socko refers to them as the "corporate elite." People who make their money primarily through the labor of others by means of owning the means of production, which is to say things like factories, tools, raw materials, etc. Under capitalism, the capitalist class and the working class (often referred to as the proletariat by Marxists) exist in constant struggle with one another in an unequal power dynamic where the capitalist class holds all the power in our societies, hence why Marxists will refer to bourgeois democracy as a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," because ultimately the votes of the proletariat don't matter in the grand scheme of things, and what ultimately determines the direction of our society is money from the bourgeoisie. The US Supreme Court even passed a ruling called Citizen's United which makes this form of blatant bribery completely legal. Since the bourgeoisie have all the power in society, you can always expect things that would negatively affect the bourgeoisie and their profits like workers rights legislation, climate change reform, healthcare reform, tax reform, etc. to always fail to become law, and whether or not Bernie Sanders becomes President isn't going to change this. Even in social democracies like the Scandinavian countries where these things have become law, they are essentially privileges afforded by the bourgeoisie to the proletariat in times of economic boom, and those privileges can be withdrawn by them at any time without any input from the workers, and they are only able to exist because of the mass exploitation perpetrated by those countries on the imperial periphery through colonialism and imperialism.
Ultimately, the reason why we are taught a nationalist narrative in history class is because it's a narrative that is convenient for the capitalist class. It allows the working class to explain the contradictions of capitalism as not being due to any inherent flaw with capitalism, but instead it's Russia's fault. It's China's fault. It's the immigrants' fault. Etc. Anything to distract from the truth, even if it leads to the formation of far-right extremist movements. Lenin once famously said that fascism is capitalism in decay, and he is referring to the fact that capitalists, including liberals and "centrists" will come to the extreme right for help when capitalism is in crisis, and this crisis is leading to the formation of far-left socialist movements. All in the interest of protecting capital from a potential socialist/communist revolution, thus protecting the interests of the ruling class. Far from politics being a horseshoe, it's common to see Marxists argue that the political spectrum is more of a fishhook, with liberalism and fascism serving the same bourgeois class interests, while the left serves proletarian class interests.
(I went way over UA-cam's character limit, so this is continued in the replies. Whoops!)
4. The statement "Marxism is a critique of capitalism and not a theory" is what prompted me to write this comment in the first place. In the words of Socko, this narrative is "demonstrably false and pedagogically classist." As I've already discussed, Marxism has its philosophical underpinning in dialectical and historical materialism, and these topics are a critique of far more than just capitalism, but rather the entire history of class society. The focus just happens to be on capitalism because that was the dominant mode of production when Marx was alive, and continues to be the dominant mode of production to this day. There is also plenty of Marxist theory out there for those that care to read it, going into the topics of economics, revolution, how to effectively carry out a socialist revolution, the state, how to include the masses in the decisions of the proletarian vanguard, what can be considered Marxism and what can't, and much, much more. It's a continuously evolving scientific theory and analysis that is always being built upon by new theorists. We typically acknowledge Marx, Lenin, and Mao for their significant contributions to Marxist theory, but Stalin also wrote plenty of Marxist theory, most of the big names you've probably heard (with the exception of the Kim family) have contributed to Marxism as it pertains in the material conditions of their own countries, Michael Parenti and Fred Hampton have written theory in the context of the US, Rosa Luxemburg wrote theory, etc. Marxist theory is developed through materialist analysis of the current era's material conditions, as well as through the experimentation of previous socialist experiments. The goal in fact is not to dogmatically cling to the things that Lenin or Stalin or Mao wrote and the things they did, but to rather analyze their successes, their failures, and new contradictions of capital that were not analyzed before to further develop the Marxist understanding of the world beyond what they were able to achieve in their lifetimes so that the next socialist experiment can be even more successful than the last one.
Also, as a Marxist, I actually wouldn't recommend "The Communist Manifesto" as a beginner's pamphlet to Marxism. It's fine and all, but I think "Principles of Communism" by Engels is a better introduction to communism than "The Communist Manifesto." It's less combatitive in its language than the Manifesto, and it does a better job of describing the core ideas of Marxism.
Link to "The Principles of Communism:" www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
5. Marxists describe the world economy as "the global network of capital" because of how we view the conflicts of the world as not being conflicts between nations, but the conflict of the global capitalist class vs. everyone else. Capitalists in different nations will usually help each other and come to each others' defense so long as they are all working together to protect their interests and their profits. For example, the capitalists of the US will usually work with the rest of the capitalists in the imperial periphery to enforce the rule of capital, enforce the colonial/neo-colonial rule of the imperial core over the imperial periphery, and crush any socialist experiments under crippling sanctions and embargos, or outright regime change and invasions. This was true right from the start of the very first socialist experiment in the USSR, where the fledgling USSR was invaded by 14 different capitalist nations that came to the aid of the White Army during the Russian Civil War. You did touch on the imperialism and labor part of this pretty well. I just wanted to bring class into the analysis
6. On the "neoliberal fascism is destroying the left" point, this is meant to be taken literally. The bourgeois neoliberal state does everything it possibly can to silence, villify, and destroy in a very literal sense Marxist and anarchist movements both at home and abroad. The US tried for over a century to destroy the USSR and eventually succeeded after Gorbachev became the President of the USSR and implemented policy that allowed US imperialism into the country (on top of a bunch of other reasons, most of which also have to do with Gorbachev's horrible policy failures, but this is viewed as Gorbachev's most extreme revisionism by Marxists, and trust me, you'll find absolutely no love for him in Marxist circles), and the imperial core/global north still is doing everything it can to destroy global socialism across the world, as well as at home. Fred Hampton was killed in his sleep at the age of 21 in his own home by CIA agents, MLK was assassinated by the US government, Malcolm X as well, the US perpetrated the Kent State massacre to destroy the growing leftist movement, etc.
Also, you have to understand that, from a Marxist analysis of class, "neoliberal fascists" is not an oxymoron because they both ultimately serve the same class interests, and we've seen many times throughout history that liberal capitalists will turn to fascism for protection when capitalism is threatened with a real possibility of collapsing or falling to a revolution. I already used this quote by Lenin before, but here it is again; "facsism is capitalism in decay." It's also a popular trope in leftist circles to say "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds," again describing how liberal nations turn to the far right when under threat. You can see this happening right now in the US with the rise of Trump and far-right extremist movements in response to the growth of the left and the looming economic crisis that is inevitably going to occur alongside the collapse of the US empire now that the US has repeatedly proven in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the rise of Russia and China as economic competitors to the US, that the US no longer has the ability to pose an existential threat to those that would oppose its hegemony.
It is very true that Socko is using a lot of Marxist jargon in his description of the world and describing it in a way that only a Marxist would really be able to fully appreciate, but at the same time, these are all incredibly complex topics, and Bo kind of has to condense these topics down into very short, simple, albiet jargon heavy statements in order to cram them into the timeframe of a song, and these statements all have to resonate to some degree with the listener in order to have the intended effect. I think he does an absolutely brilliant job of that, and if that gets people to actually sit down and consider these ideas in new ways, maybe get some people to learn about what Socko is talking about, that is what I find extremely valuable about this song. Socko is relying on the intuitive understanding that most people have that there is something wrong with the world to encourage people to offer an alternative to the narratives that we have all had shoved down our throats for all of our lives. There's hardly a member of the working class that doesn't feel exploited at work, who doesn't feel alienated from their own production, or who doesn't have some kind of intuitive sense that something is very wrong with the world, and while Socko isn't exactly offering a very detailed explanation, he is planting the seed for these intuitive senses to become nuanced analysis by encouraging people to actually think about what he said, and to go read some leftist theory to figure out what we're really all about.
7. I would discourage heavily against the idea of "not identifying with labels" and pretending to be unbiased and objective. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased, apolitical, objective viewpoint. Everyone has a bias no matter how hard you might try to not have one, and it is good to be able to correctly identify your own bias and the biases of others. You have a bias, I have a bias, the media has a bias, the narrative you're taught in history class has a bias, both of those latter two usually lean towards a bourgeois-serving bias, etc. Trying to get rid of these labels only serves to sow confusion in this regard. Trying to consider all viewpoints is also an idealist and ultimately useless gesture. Do not give the far right the freaking time of day to spew their lies at you, please, a freaking beg you. If you only consider the viewpoint that is backed up through a correct analysis of the world, you are far more likely to be able to interpret what is "truth" compared to someone who exposes themselves to the propaganda that people like Tucker Carlson spew on a daily basis. These people, especially Tucker Carlson, have been trained by global capital to be propagandists, and they are very good at taking decent people and turning them into total psychos. Tucker Carlson in particular even used to be a CIA agent whose job it was to spread propaganda in foreign countries to destabilize their governments. Do. Not. Give. The. Far. Right. The. Time. Of. Day. They aren't interested in making you a better critical thinker. They aren't interested in telling the truth. Everything they have to say to you is demonstrably false and not backed up by any facts whatsoever, and is hand-crafted expressly to rob you of your critical thinking skills. There is no "objective" analysis to be had by "considering all viewpoints" when half the viewpoints are total nonsense expressly crafted to make you into a literal fascist. Compromising with insanity doesn't lead to truth. It just leads to insanity.
8. The fact that all politicians and cops exist to protect the interests of the corporate elite isn't a generalization. That's just a fact. Read Lenin's "State and Revolution." Even if this is not the intent of every politician and cop, it is nonetheless the material reality that results from their actions as a part of that state apparatus. Therefore, it is impossible to be a "good politician" or a "good cop" and not be complicit in the perpetuation of the power of the bourgeoisie because it is literally your job to protect their interests whether you want to or not, and you will be fired from these jobs if you don't. The people in those professions expressly signed up for this, whether they read the fine print or not.
The state, and by extension, the cops and military, which are the armed apparatus of the state, exist to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie when you live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The state itself exists solely to be the means by which a ruling class oppresses an oppressed class. It's not a fluke that all American politicians take bribes from corporate oligarchs and then proceed to do their bidding. It's not a fluke that the cops violently put down every left-wing protest while ignoring the Proud Boys and even siding with them. These apparatuses all exist to serve the same class interests and always have. They've been protecting the corporate elite from the working masses in America ever since the US government violently put down Shay's Rebellion in the late 1700s, mere years after the end of the Revolutionary War. The fact that these statements bring a clear divide into the discussion isn't a bad thing. In fact, it's a good thing the divide is being brought to light, because it exists whether we talk about it or not. Not wanting to address these aspects of our society because they "cause divides" is idealist and therefore not useful to a materialist analysis of our society. I'd even go so far as to say that it's obscurantist and encourages people to bury their head in the sand to these issues.
Lastly on this Socko line, and this is speaking purely as a Marxist, I don't like that the conversation went into talking about how Socko is "accusing people of having bad morals and bad character." This discussion is philosophically idealist, and therefore is completely not helpful for understanding a Marxist critique of these systems. Socko's analysis is a materialist analysis of the state and the military state apparatus. The fact that it comes off as a moral argument to us is because of the fact that the interests that these things serve goes directly against our own interests as members of the working class. We can have a discussion about things like right and wrong, justice and injustice, and I would argue that justice is on the side of the working class as the exploited class, but that's an entirely different discussion, and it's important to keep those kinds of discussions separate from a materialist analysis. The point is, sometimes a materialist analysis of aspects of society is going to spit out some hard truths, and we shouldn't then say that the materialist analysis is making a "moral argument that judges people's character." As an astronomer, I would very much like it if it weren't possible for a random gamma ray burst to slam into our planet without warning, wiping out all life on Earth, but alas, that is the way of things. We can't debate the morality of a gamma ray burst any more than we can debate the morality of the state apparatus doing its job because that is just the way of things. The gamma ray burst is a natural consequence of the death of a massive star, and the state apparatus protecting bourgeois interests is a natural consequence of the mode of production we live under.
9. Something that wasn't touched upon that I want to touch upon. Socko says "don't burden me with the responsibility of educating you. It's incredibly exhausting." One of the big problems when it comes to trying to educate people about the left is the fact that so many entitled people just want to have everything explained to them by someone else and they don't want to do their own investigation, which is completely untenable as a method of learning about the left. I mean, you can see the length of this comment. It *is* really exhausting. Unlike the simple narratives that the right peddles and the simple "compromise, but only with the right" offered by American centrists, ours is not a simple tale that can be told with all the drama of a Marvel movie. Marxism is an incredibly complex and dry topic. By expecting us to educate you on all aspects of Marxism, you are demanding of us that we know literally everything about everything and be able to explain it to you like you're five. It's not our responsibility, it's yours. We are certainly happy to help, but we can't teach you about any random topic or answer any random question that comes up because we aren't supercomputers with a database of all humanity's knowledge, and even if we could, most of us have responsibilities other than spending several hours responding to questions from newcomers to Marxism. Fortunately, there are plenty of great books to read about Marxism, most of which can be found completely for free on the internet, and if you need help figuring out where to start, most Marxist groups will usually have a reading list expressly tailored for newcomers. Basically, we can't rewrite "Das Kapital" over and over again for everyone who wants to learn about Marxism. You simply can't expect that of us. Entire college courses can be taught on "Das Kapital" alone. You absolutely have to do your own research if you really want to develop a full understanding.
Anyway, thanks for coming to my Ted Talk!
Thanks so much for leaving such a thoughtful comment full of links & sources to check out both for me & anyone who stumbles on this video too. That's exactly what this channel is about, sharing ideas~ haven't dove into them yet, but I just wanted to say this is awesome!
@NDEnbyGamerMax personally, I agree that everyone has bias and everyone falls under a label of some sort and can't be helped. Labels are important even, and can help with research etc.
I believe it's important to recognize your biases and work to change them, or basically know what you stand for, and also be willing to change and listen. I want to be clear, I'm not even close to "getting rid of labels", just advocating for awareness of not only your own identity but how others view themselves and the ideas people tend to project onto others.
I do think we should give those with opposing thoughts serious thought and listen to them, and understand them. Just wanted to make that clear in case the vid wasn't 💕
19:30 To make the point easier for people who haven't really encountered the particulars of political labels, I use the X,Y graph of political alignment. Liberal to conservative on the X, Libertarian to Authoritarian on the Y...I would say Neo-liberalism falls into the "Cultural/Societal" axis liberal but the "State/Law" axis authoritarian, hence the neo-liberal fascist, the use of liberal culture and their business to control government (Sheldon Wollin called it, Inverted Totalitarianism). But the beliefs fall into a "Range" or quadrant because people are complicated and many times you have to plot each individual issue so you end up with a kind of personalized scatter plot which really doesn't help flesh out the labels if I'm honest, but it can give one insight into their own beliefs, lol...Great breakdown by the way!
Oh that's an EXCELLENT way to explain it too, and your totally right, each issue really deserves its own analysis since it's so complicated:) Thanks so much for your comment~
2 years late here but "global network of capital" i interepted this as the systems put in place by the global elite / powerful people by which control over the working class is orchestrated. Speaking strictly from an american perspective some examples that come to mind are the legal practice of lobbying by large corporations, buying your way out of lawsuits, bailouts to corporations, and private healthcare (driven by aforementioned lobbying) which essentially ties workers physical safety to needing to maintain traditional employment. Basically the systems that are driven by vast sums of money that ultimately screw over workers in favor of the rich
It's nice to see someone actually understand "Liberalism" is not a slur to be used when you disagree with someone.
for sure! ppl do be throwing around political terms as insults. most the time they don't really make sense either....
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes I feel like that's intentional. George Carlin touched on this in one of his segments but the lowering of intelligence in America is in on purpose. If Americans in mass were smart enough to understand they're all getting screwed they would unite against the people controlling everything and the ones in charge (the billionare class) don't want that. So they keep people dumb and fighting amongst each other. And it ain't just a conspiracy, it's currently happening.
How do I like this video more than once?
I interpreted the Marxist means of production line through a more organized labor lens. Perhaps referring to early unionization and organization (like the Soviet factory committees) in which the workers were able to establish contracts with raw materials sellers and product buyers and have a direct influence on their compensation through their skilled labor and control of the physical factory and machinery. It had limited success naturally as the Soviet system began to grow and centralize, but it certainly was a literal direct control of the means of production. Thanks for your great discussion!
Ooh this is a really interesting point, that's a great example. Thanks for watching 💕
The Dissect Podcast (which is on Spotify) did a 9 episode analysis of Inside and analyzed How The World Works in part 3. In it the host went over Socko's line about the police protecting the elite. He explained that the concept of a police force didn't exist until the late 19th century when it was created by the wealthy elite who felt threatened by the increasing working class population, especially since there was an influx of immigrants into that population. In Chicago there were major labor strikes and riots from workers that went on during the late 1800s. Each of those strikes and riots was put down with violent force by the police, newly installed to restore order to their civilized society against the lowly working class.
Oh my goshhhh yes, the dissect podcast on Bo's inside is still on my podcast list & I haven't gotten to it.
Police forces in the US have a background rooted in both racism and classism, & I didn't bring up that history in this video. That's really importan
t to bring up. Thanks for leaving a comment on it :)
I love your interpretation of the "private property is theft" line! I honestly didn't even think of it that way. I thought of private property in the marxist sense, like the private ownership of capital, not privately owned land. It does make sense to understand both interpretations as theft however. This video is great! ❤️
It's an echoing of Proudhon, right? Anarchist theory is fun.
One thing I wish you'd mentioned is the line at the end of the first verse - "gives what they can, and gets what they need". Of course it isn't really how the world works - animals starve to death all the time. But it's a cute line for the children's song it appears to be at first, and it's basically Marxism.
"Private property is inherently theft" is another Marxist idea. This is the idea that at one point no one *owned* anything, until someone came along and said "this is mine now". Since then, the only way to obtain anything is to either steal it, or purchase it from the person who originally stole it.
My interpretation of "neoliberal fascists are destroying the left" is more of a..... they've infiltrated the left; and by doing so, they are destroying it from within.
The way I interpreted the neo-liberalism part was that the left in some countries have allowed neo-liberal ideas to flourish in their political parties so that both the right and left are essentially just different degrees of neo-liberalism rather than anything fundamentally different from it or opposed to it. In that sense it’s “destroying the left” if you feel that by embracing neo-liberalism it’s no longer truly left wing.
To be fair I don’t really know how fascism fits into that and I’ve always just thought that was just thrown in for rhythm/music reasons, or maybe to equate neo-liberalism with fascism to some degree.
Thank you, I cried.
I once saw a box of tissues and they had funny memes on each tissue. I'm giving you one in spirit my friend 💕
This was an awesome break down of this song. I have watched a lot of reactions, but none like this. Very educational, especially the discussion on the global division of labor.
After listening to this analysis, it sounds like Socko is parroting things he has heard, conspiracy theories and the like, without having a full understanding of what he is saying. I always thought Bo was playing the "elite" or the "bad guy" while Socko is portraying oppressed peoples, but now I think there is a lot more layers to it than just that.
Also the way I interpreted the "neo-liberalism fascists destroying the left" line as essentially the democratic party of the US. The Overton window is a wild thing. In the US we all know that both parties (that mean anything, for some reason) are hyper capitalist and generally have no problem with the sort of neo-colonialism you had described in the previous segments of the video. The politicians of those parties, specifically. Those particular neo-liberals that are ok with gay people and puff their chests out about human rights and whatnot are viewed as the major party of the left here. The voices of "The Real Left" tm are sort of drowned out on a global stage. Whereas I've been told that in many countries (including countries that do the same thing, like the nordic countries) are taught that there there are two right wing parties in the US and we don't really have a left party. In my opinion? Not wrong. Often hypocritical, but not wrong. Anyway what're we talking about? Whatever, I lost the plot. Throw bricks.
I know this has been out for a year but I am always looking for people's reactions to this song. I think you do a great job breaking it down. I think you're pretty spot on when it comes to what Socko is saying, but I think this song is deeper than just Bo speaking through Socko and playing a character.
Bo and Socko are representative of the current status quo. Bo represents the superficial and infantilizing power structure that currently exists. This structure pays lip service to ideas of cooperation, and altruism. It even allows for Socko's critique of how the world works. Going as far as to feign his desire to learn and change when Socko exposes this naive superficiality. However, as soon as Socko refuses to participate in the actualization of Bo, and thereby derail Socko's whole point, Bo reveals the true nature of the power structure.
When Bo says, "... remember who's on who's hand...," he is explicitly threatening Socko and exposing the status quo's inherent inequity. Bo then tries to remove the sock and only stops after the pleading from Socko. Bo then demands Socko apologize, promise to behave, and call him sir. In a kind of propitiation. They then sing together that "This is how the world works." Literally saying learn this lesson. Unfortunatly, in the end, Bo does yank off the sock for no other reason than he can. Showing the arbitrary and capricious cruelty of the current status quo.
I may be diving way too deep, but I think Bo's smart enough to work on this more meta level. Anyway, great work!
I LOVE the breakdown you had about "how the world works" ending with socko, I agree with you 100%, much more succinct than mine here (haha!) Thanks for checking out this vid after it's been up for a year! makes my heart happy that people are still enjoying it 💕
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes Wow, thanks for responding. I am glad you found my comment interesting. I hope you have a great 2024.
@@ampere11 thank you so much 💕 same to you 🥂
Hey! Great video, really enjoyed it.
Just wanted to give my humble opinion, even though I don't really know much about political science.
When he says neoliberal fascists are destroying the left... I took it as this fenomenon that has been taking place for some years now in which political movements like feminism are banalized and turned into a brand and a slogan, a product. The reduction of big fights for rights and justice to the desires of the individual... and the justification of sistematically oppresive institutions on the free choice of the individual. If she or he wants to do it, then who are you to say they can't, thus reducing huge collective fights to just a mere individual choice, so the oppresive systems cease to be questioned and you essentially empty politically a fight for collective rights, and leave the road empty for the market to dictate the rules. That's my take but since I don't know much about political science, I may be wrong. I also didn't see this take anywhere so it might be just me haha.
PS: English is not my first language so I apologize for any grammatical error.
With the global network of capital I think you are right to rephrase the point somewhat, but only on the condition that there is the unity of the production and reproduction of capital where the separation of the workers from the mp is the necessary condition for production and must be reproduced as a condition for the accumulation of capital. So both you and Bo are correct, but only if we understand how the exploitation of workers in the production process is at the same time the reproduction of the separation of the workers from the means of production since the workers are forced to then buy the products of their own labor on the market to realize the value they added to the product for the capitalist.
I am just using a standard marxist definition of capital where capital is a social relation where money turns into more money by the exploitation of labor in the production process. So an initial sum of money becomes the commodities of mp and labor power which then combine in the production process directed towards the production of a commodity that then has more value than the original sum advanced by the capitalist. These commodities are then sold on the market to realize the value above the initial sum which forms the basis for the capitalists profit. So capital is the full circuit M-C(l/mp)-C'(C+c:surplus value)-M'(M+m: profit).
M: money
C: commodity
(l: labor/mp: means of production)
Hmmmm... I'm slightly disappointed that you feel we need to 'guess' what socko meant... I thought it was rather obvious if you follow the rise of the Moral Majority in the '80s, to the contested 2000 election, to the Tea Party through Trumpism, to where we now stand...
Interesting way to look at it! I understand your view, but to me it didn't come across as obvious. When you deep dive into defining terms and concepts, the interpretation can be so different based on world view, I have a pt.2 up on my channel if ur interested, and I kinda go into it there~
I do have a question regarding the Private Property bit! Do you think he means simply owning personal property is inherently bad, or is it more so owning property in an undemocratized workforce that is used to produce capital bad? Not a political science student, but I am a Philosophy one lol).
It's an echoing of Proudhon, who was an anarchist. Anarchism gets its organised start in the English civil war, from a group called the Diggers; they advocated for a return of the common land, which meant that the fields people used to grow food and feed cattle and live was not owned by anyone. The English civil war was a fight between Parliament and the Crown, so basically between the options of government and monarchy owning the land. Anarchists will say either group owning that land is stealing it from the people (and they're right).
"Neoliberalism is the new fascism." This works much more easily if we use Mussolini's definition of Fascism, which is the total unity of state and corporate power.
Would I be surprised to find Bo referencing Mussolini? Not at all. He's already cited Marx ("separate the worker from the means of production") and Proudhon ("property is theft")!
Love your point about Socko's generalization: the left and right both have their far-out conspiracy theories. I was an organizer for OCCUPY, and I've heard em all :-)
I just started, 3:22 imo humanity have "consciousness" is bless and curse at the same time hahahhah
Haha!!! Yessss totally feel that. Yay for the ability to be creative & interactive with each other but boooo anxiety & responsibility. Lolol. I guess consciousness can lead to tons of fulfillment and then at the same time be super overwhelming. And it just depends on the day! darn humanity lol
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes just finished the video! As a non American, even non-westerner, just a random person from a conservative country, this video taught me sooo much! THANK YOU :").... In this "American-centrist" world, and the effect of globalization, I'm trying to learn about American and western politics in general, sometimes I agree with right sometimes left, and sometimes I got soooo confused by all the big words HAHA, but at the end of the day... I just wanna know the truth :") more unbiased politics/history/philosophy videos please!! new sub!!❤
@@adaninurs Aw!!! Oh my gosh, I'm so happy to hear you enjoyed this. And honestly THANK YOU for your encouragement! I'll try really hard to make more informative content that represents multiple points of view. This interconnected world is really complicated, and there's so much to adventure through, I'm so happy you found your way here.
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes yess! Must be sooo complicated! As simple as "identity", it's a HUGE deal in the west to identify with something, either profession, political views, gender, anything... But over here in my country, not at all, most people just live their simple life.-. or even like "veganism" it's sooo huge in developing countries, sometimes even seen as solution... But over here, Indonesia is the 4th largest country in the world and we UNDER CONSUME meat, it's just doesn't make sense to "push" the veganism over here.. (at least right now)
That's just some examples honestly, that I wish people not stuck in their world view, more tolerance, and see other perspective too... Cause this world isn't black and white. And I just wanna know the truth :") so once again thank you for making this video and at try to be as "unbiased" as possible...
Loved hearing your point of view on the entire video
The songs mere existence is sad on a more personal level, because the only reason it exists is that bo was literally going insane in quarantine.
And please do more Bo Burnham if that fits your format
Yes absolutely!!! Next month, I'll have 2 more Bo Burnham video's, a squid game one, and one on the first Chinese woman in the US :)
Ugh... ok, one more... on the cops and politicians line, I didn't get that it was accusatory at all, just a simple statement of (in his view) fact -- like, if I were to say that 'boxers are destroying their bodies', I am not ACCUSING them of anything, just stating what I believe is obvious fact... it doesn't mean that what I am saying is their conscious intention.
Thanks so much for all your comments, and this is an interesting point I didn't think of it this way.
Though I agree with you, it's not accusatory I still think it's an oversimplified generalization however :)
I love Bo burnham so much
you and me both bestie
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes PERIODDDD
17:24 "I'd be pretty curious if you disagreed so let me know".
For starters I just wanna discuss the word theft because is it even meaningful to talk about theft? When right wing libertarians claim that taxation is theft, my response is usually not denial. My response is "does it even matter if it's good? Taxation is resource allocation which I consider to be good because the free market has gaps in how it allocates resources effectively especially for inelastic services like heathcare". I don't know if you would disagree with me here but if not, there's no point in really talking about private property being inherently theft.
I'll throw my own opinion out quickly while trying to keep it short.
The only point I want to make is about the global network of capital.
Capital in socialist theory refers to any good or currency specifically utilised to circulate and draw out more currency from the overall flow in the economy.
This is the mode of operation for capital in general.
Global simply means spanning the globe, so the global network of capital does not refer to the division of labour, or just money, but specifically capital as defined above and it's connections across the globe. The theory here being that capital does not follow national borders but is supra-national, with companies and factories being owned by whomever has enough capital to aquire them.
A common theme behind the idea of capital is that it is ever looking to accumulate, meaning eventually you end up with more and more wealth disparity, and also more acceleration in the widening of the gap between poor and rich.
This has already become commonplace, multinationals owning different parts of different sectors across continents and countries, and is that system that we refer to as global network of capital.
Socko specifically means to say that the system works to keep those who work rather than accumulate more capital away from ever closing the gap to the rich, as their work directly benefits those who own the means of production.
To reiterate, it does not talk about the division of labour, which is not a concept introduced with the concept of capital. Division of labour in a marxist sense refers to the division of previously skilled artisan jobs into it's base parts to streamline them and make them more cost efficient, specifically within manufacturies, not a general division between farmers, construction workers and so forth.
As for neoliberal facism, facism in general is often described in leftist cricles as the response of capital to strenghtening unions and socialism.
To defend itself the people in power will lean into conservatism and facism to counteract the revolutionary impulses of rising socialist sentiment, hence being destroyed by it, such as post WWI Germany. At least that is the only way I could make sense of it.
A nice breakdown of neoliberalism.
I think he's saying it's destroying the left because the traditional left political parties in both US and UK embraced neoliberalism in the 90s (Clinton, Blair) and there's a real struggle to move away from that (Sanders, Corbyn).
Where did you get your education because I want to enroll there immediately. Well, as soon as possible.
Actually, I took a break 1 year after high school just to work, went to community college, then enrolled at San Francisco State University. I also went to school in South Korea, and that's where I got my masters degree :) my education was a slow burn for sure, but I loved it, and I miss school often. My dream was to get a PhD and teach but...it's just so much money & the politics of academia can get toxic too. Haha!!
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes that's seriously so awesome. I always wanted a PhD too but ran into the same problem with money. I dream of moving to Norway where grad school is totally free!
@@jeremiahlakstins1281 that's honestly such an incredible idea! I've always wanted to visit Norway too~ it sucks that money is such a huge barrier to education...sigh. Alright it's settled, group trip to Norway! PhD's for everyone! Lolol
I'm glad you brought up the part about attacking teachers cause imo it doesn't get talked about enough.
There's another problem with attacking/going after teachers. It's the same issue with going after retail workers cauae you don't like a store. They aren't the ones making the decisions. The teachers are just there to educate and workers are just there to try to make a living. They're all proletarians (working class people). It's self destructive to go after them when it's the wealthy people in charge who make the decisions.
In America the politicians have used that as a weapon, especially in Florida, they created paranoia that teachers are brainwashing kids when the people who actually tell the teachers what to teach in the first place are the school boards and the government.
I think by "global network of capital PRIMAILY functions" they mean the mechanisms of owning capital globally, basically the ownership portion of capitalism.
The critique being that not only is capitalism stratifying us into ownership and non ownership (people living in capitalism that aren't capitalists) but that this is it's primary function and not a byproduct. It's the point of capitalism to concentrate power and wealth and prevent the workers from gas ning access to ownership
"And then the U.S.A. did a backflip and broke the bad guy's neck." - JFK
And it was super easy, barely an inconvenience.
I have not yet finished your video, but I have been highly appreciating your insightful and educated analysis, so far. There are, however, a few things that I view and interpret a bit differently. Some comments I have seen, have adressed some of the same parts similarly, so I'm sorry if I waste your time, should you actually end up reading a lengthy comment with no likes on a year old video of yours. And full disclosure, like Socko, I'm a bit of a "comrade" myself, so my interpretations are certainly biased. 😅
My first, tiny deviation from your portayal of Marx's work is at 11:30. While I don't know your sources, there might be legitimate objections to Marxism being classified as a formal theory, according to certain academic prerequisites. I don't know. However, doing a quick search I've come across multiple rather trustworthy (non-Marxist) sources, which all referred to Marxism as an economic and societal theory. Considering the sheer volume of his central work "Das Kapital" (shame on me, I've bought, but not read it), this doesn't seem far-fetched to me. Stating that it isn't a theory and then pointing towards the Communist Manifesto (which I have read) might be slightly (certainly not deliberately) misleading to people, who have absolutely no prior knowledge about Marx, as the Manifesto definitely isn't theoretical, but polemic in nature.
11:44 Is where my difference in interpretation is somewhat similar to another comment I have seen, which understood the "global network of capital" as simply money. I do think that this plays a big role, but I would like to add to this. As that other comment did, I also didn't think that Bo's phrasing (which I hadn't heard before, as well) refers to the division of labour. When I heard "global network of capital" I took it as both "capital", as in money, and "capitalists", wielding that money. The network of capitalists all around the globe, through business relations and let's call it "backdoor deals" make sure that the workers stay separated from the means of production. This assumption of mine and Bo's two lines, from my perspective, could be translated to "the global network of capitalists, using their ressources, work together to uphold the dominance of the capitalist system". I come to this conclusion, because the concentration of capital in very few private hands and the workers' exclusion from owning the means of production ("separate the worker from the means of production"), due to a lack of capital, is a central Marxist paradigm of what defines capitalism. They work to ensure it stays that way.
The means of production, from what I've heard and read, usually mean the land, real-estate, natural ressources, tools, machines, etc. necessary to produce goods, as you stated. Money is necessary to aquire all of these, which is why I personally view it as an indirect means of production, in a wider sense. But that's just me. It's not included in any of the common, "official" definitions. I'm aware that I am essentially wrong, because I am misusing terminology, which is why I don't usually use my "personal definition" in conversations, as it is confusing. Everything just always comes back to money, in my view.
15:55 As a consequence of my differing interpretation of Socko's initial statement, I think that Socko did not make a statement, which is only applicable on a national level. When combined with my previous interpretation, I come to the conclusion that Socko did take into account that the "global network of capital" is responsible for exploitation, both in the global north and south. However, your knowledge on the exploitation of the global south faaar surpasses mine and I am thankful to you for educating me on it.
15:48 Despite the fact that we interpreted and rephrased Socko's statement differently, I think your way of rephrasing it absolutely represents the core of what Bo/Socko is trying to say here. I just interpreted it in a way that additionally stresses the intent of the participants to secure this status quo of exploitation. But I might be totally wrong and projecting my bias here.
In any case, I need to stop now. I have things to do and have spent way too much time on writing a YT comment. 😅 However, thank you (and Bo of course) for producing something so thought provoking that I just felt the need to engage in a "conversation", despite the very low probability of you ever reading this.
I know it's been so long since I've posted this vid and it took me a while to get to this comment, but I absolutely do read every comment, and this one was definitely so well thought out and I really enjoyed reading your thoughts. What I found most interesting actually was your first point about the confusing point about Marx's works being theories vs. critiques. It's very clear you have more of an understanding of his works, so I appreciate you sharing!
Thanks for sharing your point of view not only for me but for others who come across this video 💕
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes Thank you so much for your kind reply! It has obviously been quite a while and so I had kind of forgotten about that "essay" I had left in your comment section. :D However, this makes me appreciate you putting in the effort to reply to it even more.
I am actually not as familiar with Marx's works as I would like to be, so there is still lots of reading to do. From all the secondary literature (and other, less academic sources) I've read so far, I can't help but to agree with most of the criticisms he raises against the inherent flaws of capitalism. When it comes to the detailed proposals he makes for an alternative society and economy, I am less familiar. I am aware that agreeing with Marxist views is pretty controversial, so I want to be well informed about the viewpoints I seem to agree with, for the most part. I happen to be German, so while Marx's main work "Das Kapital" will never be an easy read, I'll at least get to enjoy it in the language it was originally written in. Who knows, I might write another comment when I've finally read it and update you on whether I've become a fervent communist or think that his alternatives are too vague to be implemented as a viable model for a better society. Probably something in between.
In any case, I hope you are enjoying life to the fullest and thanks again for actually replying. :)
The underlying premise of private property being inherently theft is "justified" by claiming that land has no original owner, therefore it should be shared by everyone. This is easily debunked, though. Unowned land cannot just be declared owned by someone, but TRANSFORMING it, through WORK, changes it into something new, and that new thing is owned by the one who did the work. This has been recognized as a legitimate way to own something by all people everywhere for thousands of years. This is the basis for private property. So now, the transformed thing has an owner, and it can be used by that owner to acquire wealth or be sold to someone else who also acquired wealth through the same process, but creating something else that has more value. So that's that origination of the original owners, and they can then pass it on to someone else or sell it. Then, people who claim private property is theft move on to the argument "Well, THAT land was conquered through violence, so it was stolen." That argument is illogical on two fronts: 1st, it completely abandons the original premise of land not being allowed to be owned by anyone, 2nd, warfare, though I agree is wrong when done through aggression, has been a legitimate way for a society to acquire resources, recognized by ALL people everywhere, for thousands of years. It's only in recent times that people say, "I don't like it, so it's unfair and doesn't count, therefore, stolen." Just saying, "someone else owns the property and someone else has to pay rent to live there," doesn't address the entire picture, as it ignores the way the private property came into being in the first place.
This is such a well thought out and persuasive argument! Thanks for taking the time to share. I do think what Bo was writing about skewed much more to your interpretation than my own in the video.
Overall, I didn't have much a background on the private property argument on both sides actually, thanks for illuminating both. :)
@@ReeseGreyAnalyzes thanks for taking the time to read my comment. I enjoyed the video.
@@TheKyfe Aw, yay! Happy to hear that :)
I love you
I think Socko's point about separating the worker from the means of production really meant separating the CONTROL of the means of production. So rather than having the workers control the means of production and funds of the business in a democratic fashion (like versions of socialism), the global network of capital creates a great power imbalance between the capital owners and the workers.
I'm a teacher and there are ways in which we are violent and combative in classist and racist ways. I'm constantly trying to work on that.
In the exercises we propose and the way we behave towards certain students
Neoliberalism being an economic ideology at it's core and fascism being a governmental ideology isn't a contradictory statement in my opinion because the mix of the two ideologies create a movement more akin to libertarianism with a focus on deregulation of the government of the national and global economics but allowing the people who gain the capital from the deregulation to control government as they see fit regardless of social and humanitarian issues. The fascist branch of neoliberalism is that the few capital owners leading in an authoritarian way in the interest of national capital as the main focus for economic and global growth. The opposite spectrum of neoliberalism more associated with ideologies of anarchism where a national government not favored. Now in this political climate neoliberalism cares about social views and humanitarian issues which get associated with leftist but this applies only to the point at which it doesn't directly effect their ability to gain capital and free will to gain capital. Then again my understanding of current neoliberalism may be incorrect.
There is some amount of "knowing how the sausage is made ruins the sausage" going on here I think.
Ultimately its a short song trying to convey complex ideas. IMO, its less Socko having weak points due to jargon and more... "I dont know, read a book or something".
A century of oppression makes anger inevitable. Personally, I'd want to do less tone policing and more examing why someone would be using that tone to begin with.
I think your take on it being a nationalist lens, rather than classist, that drives the bias in education is interesting. I don't exactly disagree, but I would say that what is important to a nation is often driven by the ruling class of that nation or at least that is how it seems to me. Like the reason they want you to be a good little member of whatever society is in part, or in majority even, so you are not so inclined to disrupt the current class system... and it seems an effective way to do that is if you have personal pride in your country as is... and believe that the leaders of past generations did the right things. Why should I question authority look at the great job they told me they've always been doing?
I love you too
Hahaha!!! Not me being nervous and saying "k luv u bye" at the end of a video. Thx for the loves, and of course i love u back!
11:45 I'm back, and I think by "Global network of capital" I believe he is referencing institutions like the IMF, WEF, and the Fed...but there are actually two systems...the SWIFT banking system of the west and the bank of the CCP, BRICS, and other east/mid-east collections...in fact, Gaddafi of Libya actually wanted to get Africa out from under the SWIFT system and create a gold-backed African currency like the Euro called the Afro...and you see what we did about that...but in the end, they make the decisions that lead to the worst working conditions...not to say that having democratic worker control would be the best, but it would be a sight better than what we have or the grip that the CCP has, as every company that wants to do business in China must partner with a Chinese company...I was there for the esports Blizzard HK thing, and IMHO, it was very revealing...
We have two major political parties in this country, which people conflate with the "right" (the Republicans) and the "left" (the Democrats), which suits both parties just fine in their desire to manipulate and control the US public and get them fighting over tribal lines while both parties maintain power largely unchallenged. But the truth is, the Democrats aren't representative of the left at all. The furthest "left" politician we have is Bernie Sanders, and though personally he may consider himself a socialist, as a politician who advocates for specific political policies, those policies are right-leaning centrist policies popularized by Social Democracies in Europe that do not outright advocate for workers controlling the means of production which is the most basic position of actual left-wing politics. But the Democratic establishment itself, the one that deliberately manipulated their primaries in both 2016 and 2020 to ensure Sanders did not get the nomination, Clinton and Biden did, are staunch neoliberals in support of corporate fascism. The Republican Party establishment (the one that wanted anyone but Trump in 2016) was also a staunch neoliberal party in support of corporate fascism, but who also fostered tendencies of both Christian theocracy and white nationalism within their voting base. The "Tea Party" and later Trump himself and his current supporters within the Republican Party took those Christian theocratic and white nationalist tendencies within the Republican voter base and ran with them, making them the central focus of the Republican Party, much like the Nazi Party of Germany did once they seized power and dropped any socialist pretenses they used to manipulate German workers into voting for them.
In this regard, we have a political party of fascists on the "right" and a political party of neoliberals on the "left". And the primary purpose of allowing the neoliberal Democrats to be conflated with the left is to silence and destroy the political voice of the actual left. And this has been a deliberate action of both political parties since Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare of the 1950's. They are quite literally destroying leftist political organizations, such as with the assassination of MLK Jr. in order to stop his plans on organizing a poor people's movement that tied together the economic and political interests of both poor blacks and poor whites, as well as their assassination of Malcolm X and Fred Hampton of the Black Panthers for trying to do the same in their own ways. Since then, there has been no serious political voice of the left in the United States, and any attempt to build a new voice is quickly coopted by the Democrats and/or villified by the Republicans and Democrats both, such as the political smearing of Nader and the Green Party as being responsible for Al Gore not winning enough of the Electoral College that the Supreme Court was able to overturn the election results and give George W. Bush the presidency instead, or the universal condemnation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, or the co-opting of the Black Lives Matter movement into getting Biden elected and then having it fizzle out into nothing with only the barest of concessions ever given to it except a few token victories in a few select cities.
This is why, as another comment pointed out, it is said the Democratic Party is where social movements go to die. Its main purpose of existing is to coopt and silence the actual left so that the rightwing interests of capital is the only one that has a political voice in this country and the voters are forced to choose between two competing groups of capitalists who will never care about the interests of the voters every election. AKA "neoliberal fascists are destroying the left", though it's more accurate to say that they have already very successfully buried the left alive and are now simply making sure they are never able to crawl back out of the ground again.
And this isn't just true in the US. It was true in Weimer Germany, where the Social Democrats held power and were more concerned with preventing the socialists and communists from gaining power than they were with the rising threat of the Nazis. And because the Social Democrats would do nothing to help the people of Germany themselves and were successfully painted as representative of the left because the socialists and communists tried in vain to build alliances with them against the Nazis, the Nazis were able to successfully paint the socialists and communists as just as bad as the Social Democrats and the Nazis as the only party willing to bring about the changes needed to help the people of Germany. You see this tactic being repeated right now with Bernie Sanders being lumped in with Biden and someone like Trump or DeSaintes being painted as the only people who will challenge the "neoliberal leftist elites who want to turn the US into a communist nation". It makes absolutely no sense to anyone with even a halfway educated understanding of what those words mean, but most Americans were deliberately not educated in politics beyond "the Republicans are the right, the Democrats are the left", so they can get away with it, because both parties are invested in making people believe that is true.
Further still, we see this repeated in the UK where the Labor Party deliberately sabotaged itself to prevent Jeremy Corbyn from becoming Prime Minister. We see it in Sweden where people are being more and more radicalized to the right by painting the left as pro-immigrant and claiming their country is being overrun by "Islamic terrorists" (aka Muslim refugees fleeing the violence in their countries funded by NATO/the US). We see it in France where despite massive protests in the streets, the neoliberal government is trying to force through the policies people are protesting against. We saw it in the attempts to overthrow the governments in Bolivia and Venezuela. The successful attempts to do so in Ukraine, Chili, Argentina, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras and countless others. Everywhere around the world with only a few exceptions such as China, Cuba and North Korea, a network of organized capital utilizes their wealth and influence to control governments all over the world, and if one nation steps out of line, they try to utilize the US military with the assistance of NATO or the CIA to overthrow that government so one they can control is installed instead. And thus, the neoliberal fascists that control the US government and most of NATO (AKA every politician and cop on the street) literally utilize violence to destroy the left wherever they can in the world in order to enforce the interests of the corporate elites/the global network of capital. It isn't really an accusatory generalization, it is a factual systemic critique that you are muddying the waters of in defense of individual politicians and police officers, which isn't at all necessary on your part.
The positive part is nature but the negative part is about us
There's the 'from each according to ability, to each according to need' line pulled from communism
absolutely!!!
Found the one who should represent us if aliens visit us 👀
LOL. that's a job for Dr. Who! 💕
The bit about the global network of capital imo is more about moving capital to exploit the cheapest labour. "Separate the worker from the means of production" is the inverse of "the worker seizing the means of production" from the communist manifesto - ie what socko says is that companies are inherently driven by profit and thus paying workers as little as possible and make them create as much value as possible while pocketing the difference. It's far from an original take and accepted by just about everyone that don't believe that companies are altruistic in nature, but rather cleverly written.
About Neoliberal Fascism: Fascism is inherently corporatist. The lower chamber of the fascist italian parliament (the chamber of fasces and corporations) was made up by representatives of corporate interests from different sectors of the economy. Today you could argue that American corporate interests far outweigh the interest of "the people" when it comes to politics and the personal sponsoring of certain politicians to get the money required to win an election, but the companies prefer to hide behind politicans rather than be personally represented out in the open. At least it's a coherent possibility and moves perfectly into the next line about politicians and their 'armed wing' (as you could essentially view the justice system) are protecting said corporate sponsors of the political class careers - which for instance could be examplified by how wage theft (ie not paying the agreed upon wages, not paying in time, unpaid overtime etc and accounts for about as 3-4 times as much money stolen than all other forms of theft and robbery combined) hardly counts as a crime but is the same principle as threatening someone into giving you money, which in turn in is highly illegal when it's not a company doing the robbery.
I think the reason he says neo liberalism is destroying the left because most people who would hear the term liberal would connect that with the left and see it as a good thing when in reality it is on the complete opposite end
Very smart girl
Thank you! 🤓
Can't have subjective "sciences".
You've severely overcomplicated all this. Did you write a script, or wing this? I gathered a well articulated simplification from multiple ideological perspectives all highlighting the truths of how the world works. I'd be best described as "realist" myself.
Since the dawn of civilization there has been private property. There have been many monarchs, emperors, and other such conquerors who have, as you said, took everyone's land by force then made them pay taxes for working on that land. But there have also been many other societies who have observed that if you work a piece of land, that is yours. You have a right to defend it as you see fit. If you can't defend it then someone might take it. But your surrounding community accepts that it is yours.
But when Socko says "Private property is inherently theft." he means that no one has the right to own any land because it belongs to the commons. Which would be Marxism taken to the extreme.
I like this song because he is showing the divide on the left in the US. One side is acting like if we all just sing kum ba yah, then everything will just be fine. And the other side says that the whole world is a giant pile of shit and the whole thing needs to be torn down.
The truth is always somewhere in the middle.
1. Raw materials are bought just as well. Colonialism bit is nonsense. If a country wants to invest into itself - they very much can repeat the way of developed countries and start to make everything from scratch - avary achievement of science and technology of the western world. Now they gave resources for money, but money is just a goods-transfering instrument in an international trade. They get the same total value back in more valueble products like computers, software, fine machinery. They very much can refuse and focus on establishing their own cycles of complex production, but then they'd have to sit for some time without western goods. And they Want western goods. and are unwilling to return to pre-contact level of technological advancement to try to recreate that by themselves. How do you think - why?
2. Private property is not only houses and land. It is also your toothbrush. Or anithing you own. Marxist propagande has coerced you to think about landowners when talking about private property. But it is after all - a property that is privately owned. All your possessions. Were you involved in any theft getting it? House and land are of no difference. You can go to an open market and buy things of wich you can build a factory - and you also can use any traditionally "consumer" goods to create capital (like a mic or a camera can get you a video for which you can get money). There is no sane distinction, apart from leftists crazy fantasies.
3. Socko calls neoliberals fascist for the same reason he believes in conspiracy theories and shout them out on public - he is stupid and ressentimental. Like all who believe in leftist propaganda.
4. Also, neoliberalism is actually liberalism. Leftist propaganda like to add neo, in order to pretend that that is the separate way of thinking, and they try to pose as the continuation of liberalism, while having true liberals around. Clever move, but it was easy to crack.
5. Neoliberalism will certainly destroy everyone of working class, which is the electorate base and the target audience for leftism. It also will create a utopia of people who own their means of production. Which are mostly in their heads, because of course knowledge is the fundamental source of all products and wealth (do not confuse with primitive concepts of physical work and labour that are temporarily are used to instantiate ideal objects invented and proposed by intellectual elites. This shit will end soon, we have had factotum robots in 2015, and it is only the question of time when they'll get cheaper). So, basically, (neo)liberalism is meant to free market forces to bring us a better world, where all the smart people would be happy, and other people will be very unhappy. People who refuse to upgrade their skills and study, and who get their meal through wellfare pays for their outdated and obsolete physical labour protected from automation by labour unions who serve power-lusting populist politicians under the pay-for-adds-to-rule democratic system.
Dang! This is very drawn out. I’m not sure who your audience is. No offense. It’s intelligent but sooooo long for this medium.
heyy no worries, this was my first video essay I ever filmed :) it was tough but I got more succinct as I learned how to do video essays
Jesus Christ! I am so in love with you right now! Nothing attracts me more in a woman than a brain.😊❤
Super smart break down….. buttttttt, way to long. We get it. If you cut your commentary in half, it would be way more interesting. By the time your done analyzing it’s hard to care about the song, or even remember your listening to a song. Super on point, just too long. Just my thoughts. 🙏
This song is interesting and you do a great job breaking it down in an intelligent way. I was thinking Socko is saying about the neoliberal fascists that from the left's perspective, neoliberalism props up and leads to fascistic outcomes in the long run, by eroding the power base of actual leftists and socialists and human rights activists by protecting a predatory system of wealth accumulation. But I'm sure this is a broad brush that needs to be applied in specific ways that may or may not make sense depending on what is being talked about. I just finished watching "Inside" and it was very brilliant to me the way he structured the entire special. I think Bo's comedic style is somewhat dark or nihilistic, or maybe a bit irony poisoned like people who are on Twitter lol (although he also has a meta awareness of it and injects a lot of humanity into all his projects), and he paints with a broad brush though I do see some value in pointing out the danger of these bigger systems of inequality. But he also speaks the way people talk to each other on Twitter, which is intrinsically the opposite of coalition building and more just yelling, even if good points are sometimes being made.
I would add, I do think you're smarter than me so I have no idea if what I'm saying is completely accurate it's just my interpretation based on the knowledge I have at hand. But you definitely broadened my perspective on it.