This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2024
- Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.83/mo + 3 months extra before the BIG DEAL deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Hakim
First Thought: / @firstthoughtnews
Support me on Patreon: / comradehakim
Twitter: @YaBoiHakim
Article link: doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.20...
00:00 Introduction, Was Humanity In Absolute Poverty?
05:47 The Analysis: Mortality, Height and Real Wages
07:46 The European Condition
10:53 Latin America and Colonialism
13:16 Africa, India, China
15:27 Conclusion
Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.83/mo + 3 months extra before the BIG DEAL deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Hakim
First Thought: www.youtube.com/@firstthoughtnews
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/ComradeHakim
Twitter: @YaBoiHakim
Article link: doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106026
The research is clear. Capitalism had resulted in massive growth of poverty until the rise of left-wing, progressive and anti-colonial movements despite it's impressive ability at developing productive forces and standardizing industrial production and manufacture. As Marx said, "Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery at the opposite".
Could you do a response on Praxben about his criticism on your "Socialism is scientifically better" video
Ese es mi ñero el iraquí dándole duro a la propaganda neocolonial. Saludos. Montañas de Colombia.
Bruh i just bought express VPN for a year like a month ago, I'm fucking SEETHING
@Apsoy Pike as a mexican polical sicentist that has lived with the zapatistas (Galeano kinda hates me, but meh) and indigenous communities for a long time: these "southern communes" you're talking about exist only because of the support the mexican state gives to them (imms, cfe and all of that).
It's an interesting paradox; the same state that actively wants to delete them from existence keeps them alive.
That's hilarious, you interrupt your diatribe against capitalism with an advert for some useless crap, demonstrating your complete and total fealty to the system you supposedly despise. What a fraud.
Capitalism's defenders might as well be saying "Before the invention of bank accounts, no one had any money in their bank account!"
LMAO
brilliant.
"Capitalism defenders"... you mean pretty much every single academic, economist including Nobel prize winners? But never mind I got my economy lectures from a from UA-cam with failed religious belief
No one is stopping you from moving to a place that still hasn’t developed capitalism.
@@selimfurkandalgic9548 anything I don’t like is bad!!
One of the greatest achievements of capitalism, has been claiming credit for the positive results of fighting against it
That's also kind of biased. Not as much as pretending that capitalism made all that possible, but still constituting a flawed point of view.
The fight against it was necessary for the changes to finally happen. But what directly made it even possible through a causal link was a sum of important developments in human knowledge, most of them occurring thanks to the establishment of a wide and strong scientific community (as well as similar organizations, like what happened in Greece or in some Emirates focused on knowledge seeking). That's the primary cause and what ultimately has led to a huge improvement in several living conditions.
I can assure you that, without those, no matter how hard some could have fought for social changes, true change would have never happened. Those in power would have never allowed it by any mean. They allowed those social changes because the knowledge gathered was enough to let them happen without actually threatening the statu quo. That way, as this same video mentions, everyone could live better without them losing their higher status based on resource/capital accumulation.
So that's how it truly goes. In that sense, I don't think there's ever existed a true social change. And I don't even know if said knowledge expansion I mentioned can be seen as positive or not. On one hand, it is indeed the main reason why our living standards have improved, causally. Yet, it's the fine measure that has allowed the social pressure to gradually escape instead of exploding with force. This serves as a tool for those in power so they can always stay there. These small changes made possible by knowledge have been the perfect way for them to stick to power while also avoiding a complete uprising coming from the rest of the population. Maybe, without that knowledge, even though they would have never allowed peasants to make those gradual changes, the situation would have become completely unsustainable. And maybe that would necessarily have led to a true social change way before in history. A true general idiosyncratic, political and economical change that would allow us to truly advance as a society and not as simple-minded commodity seeking brutes. So I don't know what to think... maybe such crisis would have led us to collapse and extintion instead; or maybe it indeed is the kind of general collapse that we need to rebuild everything in a more proper way. It's a hard issue.
BIG W for this perfect summary.
Just like religion. It loves to claim credit for all the problems it creates and the freedoms introduced by secularism.
It's about competition, right? Including competition of economic systems.
Indeed
You know the system is absolutely shit when non-colonial feudalism beats you in major metrics.
I mean, you could argue hunter-gatherers before agriculture were better off and starved less than under a feudal society.
@@andydavis3075 100%, only problem, they were much more susceptible to natural setbacks.
I would still much rather live in that kind of society. All we can do now is build it today.
The world over, feudalism only arose as a dominant status quo when civilizations were under extreme crisis, when even kings were in danger of starving. It still funneled wealth and power upward, but at least it was predicated on _food production to meet actual human needs,_ not increasing production, period, to make imaginary numbers on a line graph go up.
Old stuff good, new stuff bad.
@@andydavis3075 because they lived like socialists🗿
I emailed my global studies professor this journal paper you outlined and he was impressed that he is planning to add parts of it to his class lecture next semester. Thank you Hakim for the exposure to this type of literature.
W Professor
Based. Thank you
Small criticism to a very good video: There is something being overshadowed by all this "economic numbers talk"... That a lot of the basic necessities of life for a peasent in 1500 was not commodified (and therefore not part of the commodities marked and not measured in "GDP"). Since this is a qualitative characteristic that is hard to measure, the only thing we can say is that someone that produces their own food, clothes and other stuff like the Chinese peasants did in 1600 will not make (or furthermore need) any meaningful contribution to the market economy of commodities. So the peasants of the past were "even more rich" than what we think now that we have to buy every little thing that we need for basic life reproduction.
Industrialization led to the mass production of basic needs. Due to economy of scale, this is absurdly more efficient and cost effective. This means that a person's time and effort is much more well spend in a cheap manufacturing factory than on a farm. And in free market capitalism, employers can't force anyone to work for them, so they have to compete for labor i.e. present better working conditions, wages and opportunities than a farmer could otherwise get. This is why whenever we see a loosening in corruption and state control in a relatively poor country, it is immediately followed by a huge wave of people flocking into the cities to get cheap manufacturing jobs since they are superior. We can clearly see how hard farmers had it in the pre-industrialized world and how materially richer people are in industrialized societies.
@@8is industrialization is good? Who would've thought. Correlation is not causation, however.
Capitalism caused industrialization, that's for sure. That doesn't mean capitalism is necessarily good, as "good" and "industrialized" are two different things. We may be more prosperous, but is there really no alternative? Well, Finland and the other nations in Europe being far happier due to socialist policies sure as hell suggests otherwise. (Source: I live in Finland.)
While capitalism creates competition, it doesn't mean competition is always the best way of doing things. The best way of doing things encourages the most mutual benefit and discourages the most selfish benefit (i.e. benefits to oneself that cause non-benefits for others) and capitalism fails at doing that.
Was capitalism ever happening a good thing? Yes, it was. Is it a good thing that we're trying to promote a system that doesn't work in the current day and age, now that we know better alternatives exist? No, it's not.
@@Niclaas1999 Corruption is intrinsically linked with state control. The less the state intervenes in the economy, the less opportunities politicians have to abuse their power to support artificial monopolies that support them. To fight corruption and injustice is to fight state control and democratically hold the rulers accountable for their abuse of power.
@@8is Except historically that hasn't been how the transition between subsistance farming to industrial work has happened at all. In the UK, the first country to industrialise in the way we understand the term today, peasants had to be physically removed from their common lands by state coercion when their landlords realised they could make more money grazing sheep on that land for wool. Those peasants were then forced into the cities (vagrancy laws criminalised doing anything else) where they could expect to compete viciously for the privilege of working brutal 16 hour-per-day shifts in inhumanly unsafe conditions, often alongside their children. The incentives of capitalist markets are far more likely to result in a race to the bottom in regards to conditions for workers than a virtuous cycle of constantly improving conditions. Historically, conditions typically only improve when capitalists are coerced to do so by unions or the threat of expropriation, or in the aftermath of natural disasters like the Bubonic Plague which culled a huge amount of the working population and increased their bargaining power (which was met with legal restrictions on wages anyway).
@@8is this is analysis that makes the assumption of ‘all else equal’ thinking. Industrialisation was able to occur due to demographic factors- Western Europe was at the peak of its Malthusian cycle when industrialisation hit, hence the amount of cultivable land per peasant was at its lowest (hence forcing desperate landless peasants into factories) and enclosure, a centuries long process of common land confiscation, had disenfranchised and reduced the economic status of many peasants to a rural proletariat or rentiers. These pressures created the surplus labour required for industrialisation. It was not a result of industry providing better opportunities for peasants, it’s that demographic and economic factors led to an underclass of peasants who had no choice but to participate in industry. This is why an industrial revolution in the 1400s (a period of small population and a prosperous peasantry in England) would be very difficult. And there are historical examples of this. It is common knowledge at this point that Romans and Greeks had the scientific knowledge to create steam engines, and this was achieved in Northern Song Dynasty China., yet there was still no industrialisation, because industrialisation be necessitates (among other factors such as ecology and technology) a class of peasants that is desperate enough and numerous enough to work as urban proletariat.
On your point about industry not being able to coerce peasants into wage labour, this is blatantly false. Industrialisation in its origins was a process precipitated by the confiscation and enclosure of communal land and resource rights, in order to create the conditions that cause rural migration into cities. This was of course not a deliberate consequence, but state power was necessary in bringing about the conditions for industrialisation.
When it comes to industrial production in its current form, it is true that manufacturing produces better employment conditions than farming, but this was not true up until the second industrial revolution which started in the 1850s-1870s, and introduced innovations such as chemical fertilisers and plastics. It would be fallacious to assume conditions in developing countries today are equivalent to those of developed nations when they industrialised in the late 1700s. Hence your analogy of currently developing counties rural migration patterns for those of early industrialisation don’t make sense.
I love how Hakim keeps telling people to check his sources and read the paper. Most people won't even say where they got their info
This was actually one of the main reasons I became a communist. Most communists I've met are extremely well read and dig deep into the sources of the content they are sharing. Most admit openly about a bias (everything has a bias) and better yet they try to teach others how to look for themselves into things. A lot of self proclaimed critical thinkers never go beyond the first document they can find that supports their side. You've got to dig into the stated sources of things, You've got to verify and re-verify your information and you need to be willing to accept you are wrong when it is proven, beyond any doubt. The problem is that most people don't do this and would rather accept things at the headline level, some might even go as far as reading the article itself but it is far too rare for people to verify the sources of the piece they are consuming. This is why half the god damn planet seems to worship capitalism. There are people who accept without even a second thought that North Koreans believe their "emperor" doesn't poop or pee and that he's some sort of deity despite there being 0 actual evidence to even remotely show this as true. They believe china is out to get them at any moment and that the soviets were worse than Hitler. I've seen people genuinely argue in person these things that just blow my mind. Like even some of the most simple source checks can show you where a lot of information comes from and just using a tiny bit of logic you can usually find the massive gaping holes in their arguments. Half the time everything I hear spewed comes from a single god damn book made by Fascists forever ago and have been debunked a billion times already. (exaggerated amount of times, It's probably a few million times though)
@@buzzardman2963 I ain't reading all that but same
@@ericjohnson7637 … but you commented.
Dude coulda said all js should be rounded up and regassed.
It takes 1 minute, not even to read dudes comment.
You’re doing the very thing that most people do and not read
@@davantejohnson8591 just read his comment in spite of you and wholeheartedly agree. Myself will fact check even socialist UA-camrs and the sources because I know it'd be hypocritical to tell a capitalist to check their sources when I myself don't check sources before using the statistics. The thing is, people like Hakim don't twist information (extremely) or make stuff up unlike a lot of western media
@@ericjohnson7637 ITs easey to check capitalist sources though since they haven't changed since somewhere around 70s. They had nothing new to say for a long time now
The current state of the world is so frustrating, because it's not even up for debate anymore whether or not prioritizing profits or people's lives as a society is better for people. You would THINK people would understand that in order to look after people's needs you need to prioritize them, but society is so brainwashed by the profit seekers that they think ensuring someone has a place to live will make them 'lazy'. As opposed to the belief that it's hard for someone to contribute to society when they're homeless. It's such a no brainer to me that I honestly don't undertstand them. As always great content, very much appreciated
At some point you need to understand that people are incredibly intelligent, but have been lied to from birth at this point. As such, it is difficult to escape programming to like capitalism unless you have a disposition against it from a young age. Because of this, we need a full on revolution to show a genuine, real, example of socialism and communism succeeding beautifully that is strong enough economically and militarily to be well known for success outside of the country. The USSR failed at this because it was unlucky and got invaded by the Germans for a second time and had a famine after over a decade of war, which arguably caused detriments to the soviets.
There is always the theory that homeless people exist to scare people who still have jobs. Though personally I think it is because even the capitalists at the top, espiecially the ones at the top, think that financial success is a divine reward and failure, including homelessness is a divine punishment.
@@MrQuantumInc You are on the right track here, and that might play a role, but I think you are giving them too much credit for them "not knowing". Why would the richest people in the world be ignorant of such obvious facts? The simple answer is that they are clearly aware of the truth of homelessness and the suffering they are causing directly and indirectly but willingly choose to not acknowledge it out of a malicious desire for profits and growth.
We call what you are describing "Class Consciousness". Basically, the more people realize the truth, the more active in changing the situation they become. The issue you're speaking on comes as a direct result of that. When people become more class-conscious, the state (IE, the rich/ruling class) must ramp up their efforts to surpress, brainwash and oppress people. The more that happens, the more the process repeats itself until things are so bad the only option left is revolution. George Floyd is an example, and it and other incidents like it will happen again and again until, finally, we are all in organized opposition to the very system itself. Take heart: You are only feeling frustrated because you see the truth where others don't. Now join us in helping to change it.
If brainwashing did not work, they would not spend so much money to do it.
I find it amusing how they try to say people making no money in a moneyless society are living in poverty.
One of the most extreme examples of circular reasoning.
Reminds me of being like 6-7 years old and expressing the (admittedly rather uneducated) opinion that 'it would have been better if money had never been invented'. My grandmother gave the fantastically mindboggling reply that: 'but without money we wouldn't be able to buy food, and we would starve'.
I doubt it would be physically possible for her to actually be stupid enough to not understand that humans had other ways of feeding themselves before currency was invented. But that's the moment when I realised that the capacity of defending the objectively indefensible status quo is entirely dependant on someone's ability to wilfully turn their brain off as much as humanly possible.
There is no such thing as a moneyless society, please find me one. There are examples of people within society not using the money, but even feudal peasants would have used minted coins to trade for necessary supplies from time to time. There are many records of debt contracts from those times as well.
@@Plainsburner Find me any nonhuman species that uses currency. Not even fucking chimps and bonobos do so. But yeah, sure, keep believing it's somehow physically impossible, no matter how little objective sense that belief makes, if it helps you tolerate the status quo.
@@Plainsburner The north sentinelese are a moneyless society to this day. But yes huntergatherers had no money and where far from poor living comfortably with a 4 hour work day.
@@Plainsburner In the beginning, God created Money...
Not to disregard your old stuff, I do enjoy them. However, I've seen increase in the quality of your videos. Point being, thank you. I cannot show you how grateful I am to you for making such useful and amazing educational videos. All love!
It’s almost always good to see someone improving their content
It's good, but he needs to add subtitles or try to slur his words a bit less.
@@Albtraum_TDDC You can always play it at .75 speed.
@@franklittle8124 it's not too fast (I do pause to read diagrams or long text stuff), it's just the way he pronounce some words, or string words together. Minor complaint, but Subtitles also help with hearing impaired.
He is from iraq his first language is not english😅
Can't believe people think that capitalism came along as some sort of "savior" because "the world was always impoverished before it." As someone who lives on a Native Rez, I know that to be wrong right off the bat. I'm imagining those same people would call the native systems of government "primitive" or "savage" as well without blinking because to fully believe in capitalism and its ability to uplift people, one must also be racist.
One must only want a smartphone capable of writing this comment to prefer free market capitalisms over the backbreaking work of a farmer in the pre-industrialized world. Not that there is anything stopping you from buying some land to do the same hard work as your ancestors did, should be really cheap actually since nobody wants that land anyway since the real money is always in the industrialized and cities.
@@8is Bruv farmers had to work like 4h a day to meet all their needs, nothing backbreaking about it
also classic "communism is when no smarthphone", fuck off lad
@@8is The creation of the smartphone was facilitated through the state subsidising the development of the pre-requisite technologies on a massive scale - nothing to do with 'the free market'.
@@8is irrelevant. Smart phones do not objectively improve the quality of human life compared to things like universal healthcare, education, indoor plumbing etc. Your gotcha argument is a pure red herring.
"Not that there is anything stopping you from buying land."
Uhm, just one small problem:
Not everyone is rich enough to afford land, actually, most people aren't.
Wtf are you talking about, m8?
Damn it, Hakim! Just when I thought have more than enough research done for my dissertation, you HAD to upload a video regarding a really good research paper. Now I have to read this and make extra modifications to my paper.
Please share it once published if you're comfortable!
@@YaBoiHakim nerd
@@af8828 ?
@@af8828 😐
@@af8828 "nerd" - 🤓
Maaaaan, I started grad school last year and finally started reading academic writing regularly. The amount of research on global poverty that has been done is astounding.... especially considering that wealth inequality keeps rising. Sometimes I think, "What's the point?"
Great video, btw^^
What are ya studying if ya don't mind my asking
Wow, intresting
@@gemain609 Management information systems and focusing on mixing data science with social sciences.
You SHOULD be thinking about the point, because the point is that you and your descendants are made to, and are likely going to, spend your lives toiling for access to your basic needs (Never mind your wants) unless you transcend your class. Which you can only truly accomplish if you end up employing and therefore oppressing someone else. Once you realize this, you'll realize the system is a giant contradiction. One that MUST be ABOLISHED.
Good luck with you research. May it be used for the eventual liberation of the working class.
The point is so governments can say "we're getting a study done", which they then ignore and do nothing based off the information. Look at the current Australian government doing just this right now, while antipoverty activists (yeah me included) can and do point out studies THEY (this party and the other major parties) FUNDED going back to the 60s that I've personally read. We get ignored a lot by people depressingly comfortable with the status quo and those quite committed to making poverty worse.
ITT, Capitalism takes credit for other people solving a problem it created.
The author of the article seems to support social democracy whose foundation is literally taxation from a highly efficient free market. Capitalism and GDP growth is literally the root cause of the solution, not the problem.
@8is shut up bro go do something else with your damn life than argue with 600 strangers on a youtube video for once you aint convincing no one you ancap nerd 😂😂
@@8is BS
@@8is nonsense.
Taxation is *redistribution* of private resources for public gain.
This is a *reversal* of some amount of capitalism. Thus the "libertarian" capitalist opposition to taxes.
Private ownership of the means of production allows for privatisation of *publicly produced* profits. The collective does the labour, the individual who claims ownership takes the profits, *individually.*
So, what are taxes? The taking of individual profits for the public to use. That. Is. Not. Capitalism.
(It is, however, insufficient. We should take it all.)
@@8is I find it funny how you call it social democracy, when socialism is by definition democracy in opposition of capitalism which is divided tyranny. The growth in countries like Norway were not caused by capitalism, but extreme social changes which took away wealth from capitalist and redistributed it among people, capitalism part came later and living standards have been dropping since to a point currently Norway is starting to see housing affordability issues, increasing poverty etc... GDP does not represent those number as it only gives you average meaning if you have a billionaire he will raise GDP for a million people while undermining their actual struggles and living levels.
American: Eww socialism! Helping the people? EWWW! Capitalism is what really helps people! Raising prices and lowering wages, BRB!
You know its a good day, when your favorite commie uploads
Pretty based imo
_today was a good day starts playing_
The thing is, those who argue that capitalism has lifted people out of poverty are basing it on the idea that access to modern technology negates poverty.
And even if it did lift people out of poverty, it still deliberately leaves people impoverished. America is essentially post scarcity, but we still have poor and homeless people in basically every major population center because even giving people our leftover stuff is too much for this country.
I’ve lived in Canada all my life and for my whole life capitalism has only delivered declining standards of living
Doesnt Canada has one the best quality of life in the world?
@@JC-ld2uoyeah, idk about western Canada but where I live (Quebec) it’s practically a midway point between being capitalist and a Nordic country (they have cheap housing if you make under a certain amount of money too)
@@JC-ld2uo And its declining. The thing about best quality of life in the world means little when its declining across the boards, meaning its one of the best yes but when best is 3rd world country it ain't much of an achievement. This is extreme example to make the point.
Maybe the bourgeoisie would agree with that statement. But I dare you to ask an indigenous person how their life in Canada is…
@@danieljprice9317 Actually, not that bad anymore, a hell of a lot better than 30 years ago, it depends though, some nations are way richer than others, but iirc the less well off ones get some discounts (like on electricity)
take that last part with a grain of salt though since i forgot the exact details of it
Every single time Hakim uploads it makes me very happy. Stay based and anti-capitalist-pilled.
The extreme poverty argument only works if you forget that people can subsist for themselves. When you take all the land and give them jobs, they have to focus on your capitalist goals instead of their own.
Indeed , the metric used makes all the difference, people who by capitalist standards would be living in poverty like for example the plains Indians prior to the arrival of European settlers, in truth were able to live deeply meaningful and beautiful communal lives . Certainly they did not live under the constant arbitrary threat of social death that is a salient though often repressed feature of the newer culture.
@@christianrokicki Couldnt have said it better. The irony is that we have now advanced to the point where we realize living in harmony with nature, like the plains Indians, is a better way to live......
Industrialization led to the mass production of basic needs. Due to economy of scale, this is absurdly more efficient and cost effective. This means that a person's time and effort is much more well spend in a cheap manufacturing factory than on a farm. And in free market capitalism, employers can't force anyone to work for them, so they have to compete for labor i.e. present better working conditions, wages and opportunities than a farmer could otherwise get. This is why whenever we see a loosening in corruption and state control in a relatively poor country, it is immediately followed by a huge wave of people flocking into the cities to get cheap manufacturing jobs since they are superior. We can clearly see how hard farmers had it in the pre-industrialized world and how materially richer people are in industrialized societies.
@@8is *sarcastic wanking gesture*
Industrialization led to mass death and the commodification of basic needs. Division of labor is a double-edged sword, and the more you divide tasks into smaller parts, the more replaceable each individual worker gets, reducing bargaining power and thus dropping real wages. In free market capitalism, employers can't force anyone to work for them *with an open threat of violence* but what they can do is buy all the land and materials and make it impossible for people to choose not to work for them without starving. The whole "they have to compete for labor" thing is the most bold-faced lie, and either you know it or you've never spent one second looking at the claim critically. They do everything in their power (including a bunch of illegal shit because the law was built for them, not against them) to prevent the need to compete. Union busting, layoffs, the maintenance of a reserve pool of labor, hiring temps and independent contractors rather than workers who have rights.. the list goes on, and it's all designed to keep the boot on the neck of the industrial laborer who, obviously very surprisingly, sometimes has it better than the displaced agricultural worker who we must ignore that there can only be so many of, because farming is so efficient at this point, more land than ever can be worked by fewer people.
You people are just so damn tiring, don't you have some invisible boot of the market to lick or something?
Excellent point.
Girl: I like tall boys
Pre-Capitalist Countries: 😏
Capitalist South Korea: 😏
Communist North Korea: 💀
As a lecturer, I love hearing you say 'read it' ten times in 18 mins lol
Your videos, as always, are a great help in fighting against the overwhelming mythologized narratives capitalism throws at us. Even my non ML friends are more sympathetic to my ideas when I share your content.
Hmmm, I always knew they was something off with marking progress this way. Thank you for informing me.
If you want a shorter version of the article from the video, Jason Hickel also wrote an excellent piece called "progress and its discontents" for the new international. It goes over a lot of the misconceptions from the grand narrative of poverty reduction.
I highly recommend it!
Dislocation makes for extreme poverty needs to be kept in mind when capitalism stans gas on about "creative destruction" and "disruption" as great and positive things. The system is a misery generator, wherever and whenever misery can correlate with profits for capital.
LETSFKNGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SOMEONE FINALLY COVERED THIS ARTICLE THAT IVE BEEN SHOUTING ABOUT FOR MONTHS
I'm already subbed to 2d thought and that's how I found THIS channel. Hakim is Goated.
Capitalism beat poverty by redefining poverty in more strict terms.
It’s crazy how framing is EVERYTHING
Someone crank comrade Hakim down a gear. Had to listen at x0.75 speed. Give him anti-coffee. Good vid; factual and to the point.
i listened at 1.5 speed he was a little slow for me
Same
@@JP-fm5lk weeeeell... You be very fast indeed. 😅
Yeah i wish he would talk quite a bit slower 😢
Poverty rate in china in 1981 was 88% , now it's 0.6% (officially) (inflation adjusted) thank to market reforms
Read "How China escaped Shock Therapy." China persued a very different and unique path from the west. Countries that took the western recommended model like Russia after the fall of the ussr, and introduced only pure market reforms and privatized everything were economically castrated, and barely have recovered to this day.
Western morons talk about china like "More market reforms mean more gooder, line goes up." But that's not the case, China persued a less radical market liberalization than most of the former USSR, and was better for it.
China's economic reforms, and their relation to the maoist period proceeding it, were much less simple than western economist try to make them out to be.
Great video, Hakim. The study is now slotted into my reading list. Many thanks for pointing it out.
Habibi, your views have blown up! I remember when i found you years ago talking about the hong kong protest i thought to myself "i dunno, this guy seems a little extreme" now i feel like a true connection with you ,JT and Yugopnik and am glad im not alone in that. Keep up the good work guys, you really inspire me to get out and do more in spite of the bleak material reality.
Have a good ramadan hakim!
Thank you habibi
The basic problem is using GDP as a primary measure. Even it's inventor didn't want that.
I was wondering how he was getting economic and health stats from 15th and 16th century primitive tribal societies 🤔
It’s the same thing when racists will say those same ancient tribal people were low IQ: Did you grade their multiple choice sheets???
Phenomenal video. I love how you scratch the surface in these videos in very engaging and informative ways while also pointing to various further reading to learn more. Socialism Betrayed was a very worthwhile read and I'll have to pick up Late Victorian Holocausts now!
Crazy how we're still proving that gdp has nothing to do with how good a given economy is.
I love the text presentation style of the 2:20ish mark, merci habibi!
anyone aware of a journal article that tallies up total fatalities caused by and during the development of capitalism? just by rought estimate its gotta be atleast 150 million in the americas + 200 million in just a couple decades in south asia + who knows how many hundreds of millions in the rest of the world as a result of both direct genocide via artificially imposed famine, etc. and the amount of suffering to this day due to structural adjustment. and if we don't prevent climate genocide that figure will increase by billions - it'll increase by millions in just weeks if wet bulb temperatures are reached in south/east/southeast asia...
No one died due to capitalism, they died due to bad life choices, accidents, diseases not related to capitalism since diseases always existed, due to state action or communist sabotage. (This is the non ironic argument a lot of people do).
I'd seen a 3 billion estimate, there's a gif somewhere
extremely important study. Thank you, comrade Hakim, for bringing it to our attention and for your - as always - excellent work of vulgarization and popularization.
I think what people forget about this is that even if these graphs about poverty are true why should we stop here? Why not keep improving? If we followed the “it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mantra we wouldn’t have phones, internet, computer, movies all these innovations that we’ve had (ones that are in my opinion ones that happened in-spite of capitalism) wouldn’t have happened. Socialism is the way forward
We've already lifted billions out of extreme poverty. We have ushered in the greatest era of prosperity the world has ever seen. No one has had it any better than in free market capitalist countries. Understand this, no one is going to stop this, communism has been defeated, this is only the beginning and we are just getting started.
@@8is +5 shekels
@@8is bullshit. capitalism has not lifted anyone from poverty. it has actively and violently prevented that around the world to promote corruption and greed.
@@8is
Communism is still around with the Chinese defacto state capitalism. In China, companies follow 2 motives: profit, and the CCP. So long as the company toes the party line, the company is allowed to make as much profit as it wants, but if the company starts to do something the party deems objectionable, whether political or social, well, just ask Jack Ma. The end result is an administration that operates completely differently and is difficult for Americans to comprehend, and offers an alternative to the US liberal capitalist system, a system ideal for autocrats.
@@8is didn't watch the video huh?
Absolute banger paper! I stumbled over it in January, and have already crowned it publication of the year^^
Banger Hakim, well done! I’ll definitely refer some people to this video.
another banger paper by Hickel on co-authors! Hakim you are doing a great service by popularizing and keeping up to date with state-of-the-art research. It is also awesome to see that the authors cite The wealth of (some) nations by Zak Cope at 9:30.
It is really a fantastic paper, I only wished it had not been published by Elsevier.
Glad to see that people from outside of poor countries actually have a functioning brain to study history and understand marxism.
I mean, Hakim is from Iraq, and I wouldn't call it that rich of a country. At least not nowadays.
@@Kamarovsky_KCM I see but I wasn't talking about him alone but everybody here in general
This is a significant video to make. 👊🏻 Bravo!
Fascinating. Thank you
Dear Hakim,
I hope this message finds you well. I am a big fan of your UA-cam channel and have been following your content for a long time. Your videos have helped me gain a better understanding of various political and social issues.
I was wondering if you could make a video on the topic of whether socialism could be achieved without authoritarianism. With the increasing popularity of democratic socialism and the resurgence of leftist movements around the world, this is an important topic that deserves more attention and discussion.
Many people argue that socialism inevitably leads to authoritarianism and that it is impossible to achieve socialism without sacrificing personal freedoms and democratic values. However, others believe that socialism can be achieved through democratic means, without resorting to authoritarianism.
I think your perspective on this topic would be insightful and informative. Your ability to break down complex political ideas and make them accessible to a wider audience would be valuable in helping people understand this issue.
Thank you for considering my request, and I look forward to seeing more of your excellent content in the future.
Sincerely,
Matthew
Hello
There's this video from Hakim from 2 years ago: ua-cam.com/video/6GM893c1X8s/v-deo.html
There's also this other one, from Viki1999, a comrade from Austria: ua-cam.com/video/M6zQep_MsTs/v-deo.html
I hope these answer your questions!
@@clarimp Thanks
There is no "periphery" left in the global system to sustain capitalism. That's why current social policies are increasingly stacked against large families, affordable education and universal medical care.
Global food production takes up about 40% of the earth's land area. Fossil fuel and fresh water supplies are declining. Carbon dioxide pollution is changing the earth's climate.
The rich want to stay rich. Left to their own devices, the path they will choose is to freeze wages and raise prices until the lower social classes simply can't afford large well-educated families.
Again.
Thank you for including south america in the video, hope to see more of it!
NEW HAKIM UPLOAD creaming my cargo shorts rn
a banger as always
Thanks, that was quite educational - didn't think about this narrative before.
Brilliant video! Thanks for the tireless research.
Great and eye opening video. You solved a big question which I was bothering with inside my mind. ❤
Good stuff, as per usual.
5:29 as an Indian, those three (Lal-Bal-Pal) were right wing leaders who gave our national movement a religious tinge, opening the floodgates of mixing religion with nationalism. Their narratives are now used by RSS as a fascist tool for governing my country.
My fault. I tried to learn more about their nationalist positions but didn't come up with a whole lot. Many sources painted them as a progressive force during the era of the British Raj.
@@GarconTheGuy oh are you a researcher for Hakim? They were part of the Indian National Congress (the main party that was leading the national struggle). Before them, the national movement was Liberal in nature. The leaders would petition the Raj, because they belived in the British sense of Enlightened Victorian Justice (this was actually better than the tribalism we had in India, like literally, it was arich nation but extremely unjust based on favouritsm, infact the Brits started treating everyone of us as equally inferior, which was a step towards humanitarianism in the country). However, post the partion of Bengal in 1905 (this would later prove piviotal for partition of the country into India-Pakistan) the liberals became insignificant and were replaced by these Nationalists who wanted to glorify our History and help the movement have a national character. However, by opening this can of worms they started to glorify certain people and certain traditions which were not exactly something one should be proud of. Moreover, almost all of these leaders were Hindus (unlike the previous intelligenisa liberals which had a mix of both Hindus and Muslims). So all of a sudden being a proud Indian meant being a proud Hindu too. Eg. "Bal" Gangadhar Tilak started celebrating Shivaji Jayanti, to celebrate the heroic deeds of the Maratha Empire's founder Shivaji, who didn't surrender to the Mughal Emperor "invador" Aurangzeb. Now any secular historian would tell you that both of them were "Indians", and Marathas were no saints either their empire was literally powered by bounty of raiding neighbouring kingdoms (yet another reason why the East India Company could employ Divide and Conquer in India and carve it up so easily). However, Tilak didn't think twice before doing such. Now this is a problem that still affects India.
@@swagatochatterjee7104 I am Hakim's editor. Lal Bal Pal was not in the script, but I was trying to look for relevant imagery. Thank you for the info. I try to be careful with my references but sometimes I get stuck on a single edit for so long that it's better to just move on.
@@GarconTheGuy I completely understand, great work on the rest of the video though. Thank you for your service.
Damn, I though they were radical in the sense that they were radical left, while I used to make fun of liberals in congress for not being radical enough.
Also, saying Shivaji was bad in Maharastra, will get you killed. 😂
This might be the best video you've ever made, very eye-opening
This is really interesting. I've dowloaded the article and will enjoy reading it.
This needs to reach some high places
I have to read this article, unbelievable
This was a really good one! Thanks
Wow, this is a really cool format. It's shockingly "simple" but I like it!
Happy workers day to all the workers! 🚩
Thanks for sharing and making this, our world in data and their politically "neutral"/status quo affirming representation of poverty are the worssttt
OMG, Hakim, I'll read the article just lemme finish the video first! Lol
Always a great video, Hakim
The hunger games books seemed like some teenage pulp fiction. On the contrary, it was written with hidden meaning.
The capitol, the 12 districts, and the 13th, bombed into oblivion and its existence denied and/or used as "an example".
This is literally what is happening today.
It warns us about authoritarianism and totalitarianism and is a critique of state control. You can see how it glorifies the black market in district 12 and how devastating it was when the state took it away and later destroyed the entire district. It's a clear parallel to the Chinese black market in the 60s and 70s that was heavily repressed by the state all the way up until the 80s.
@@8is Yeah them Russians and Chinese be bad authoritarians nvm that the American empire is a global menace far more than either of them has ever been. Those two states don't live next to meaningless Canada and Mexico which are states that exist for no other reason than because they can.
@@8is makes sense
@@8is Source: Dude, trust me!
@@missk1697 I drew the parallel myself, but the other stuff is true; she originally drew inspiration from the Iraq War, but I think 1980s China is a much better representation of the idea she presented in her book series.
HAKIM POSTED GO GO GO GO GO
Commenting for the algorithm, doing my part for the cause
I was so stunned when I saw Wroclaw footage out of nowhere!
I would love to hear your take on Chile's economy in recent decades. Recently I've come across so much bs about the "miracle of Chile" following Pinoche and the Chicago boys. I'd like to hear well explained counter arguments relaying on data of real economy to those claimes, but haven't found.
The so-called "miracle of Chile" touted by some after Pinochet's regime is often seen as a success story of free-market policies, particularly those influenced by the Chicago School of Economics. However, a closer look actually reveals a different narrative. While Chile did experience significant economic growth during this period, the benefits were in fact disproportionately skewed towards the wealthy and corporations, exacerbating income inequality.
Data also shows that income distribution worsened during this era as well. And the neoliberal policies implemented under Pinochet, with advice from the Chicago Boys, also included privatising key sectors like education, healthcare, and social security. This led to the commodification of essential services, making them less accessible to the average Chilean. Meanwhile, the rich reaped the rewards of these privatisations, widening the wealth gap.
Moreover, labour market reforms also led to the weakening of workers' rights and collective bargaining power. Real wages also stagnated for many, while the cost of living increased. This, too, contributes to the socioeconomic divide.
And while Chile's GDP growth may seem impressive, it's also important to consider who actually benefited from this growth. In fact, the working-class and marginalised communities often found themselves struggling to make ends meet in a system that favoured the elite.
So, the "miracle of Chile" isn't a miracle at all, but a stark illustration of the consequences of prioritising unfettered neoliberal policies over the well-being of the majority. Data actually supports the argument that this economic growth primarily enriched the privileged few, leaving behind a legacy of inequality and social disparities.
@@JP-fb8ni Thank you for providing more context to my message! Do you have sources of the data you refer to?
@@ks-gn8xk Not at hand, unfortunately. However, Chile's Gini coefficient increased from 0.40 in the early 1970s to over 0.50 by the late 1980s, indicating a significant rise in income inequality. 0 indicates perfect equality, 1 denotes perfect inequality.
That's all I can provide at this moment in time, unfortunately.
@@JP-fb8nithanks for answering. Gini coefficient definitely really does give a strong backbone for the argument. However, I would love to hear a detailed brakedown from amazing content creators like Hakim. Hopefully someone would take interest in such video, I think it would be important issue, as this myth of Chilean "miracle" has been discussed so much lately.
@@ks-gn8xk Yeah, it would make for a great video alright and putting everything into context.
Liberals tend to disregard what a country is like before a socialist revolution or reform. In virtually all cases, labor movements drastically improved the quality of life in the country compared to whatever systems they have before the revolution/reform. The Soviet Union became the second largest economy in the world and held to that title for decades, it was an undeniable scientific powerhouse, among other things like world sports etc. Even declassified CIA documents admitted that average Soviet citizens received just as much calories as the West, and they actually even get better nutrition. Now compare that to the capitalist pre-revolution Russia and post-91 Russia, where it's only infamous for people living miserably - human trafficking, alcoholism, drug abuse, poverty, violent crimes etc. are rampant. Same goes with Cuba, it's evident that for average Cubans, living condition during Batista's reign was far worse despite post-revolution Cuba suffering from economic sanctions. Again, declassified CIA documents even said that the plan to sneak weapons into Cuba wouldn't work because Cubans are so overwhelmingly supportive of Castro that any serious attempts at sparking coup internally would be virtually impossible. During the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the US tried landing trained and armed exiled worms into Cuba and they're quickly overpowered because this plan relied on the assumption that Cubans are just going to welcome them back with open arms - which we know isn't the case. Yes, there are people fleeing Cuba, but they're just a small minority, that's why they aren't enough of them to overthrow the current government of Cuba even with US putting their practically unlimited resources into trying to make it happen. There's a reason why Cuban Revolution didn't turn into a full civil war, because Batista is so unpopular that able-bodied Cubans won't fight on his side.
Absolutely great video
I'm not one of your patreons, and even if I were, I wouldn't be one to come up with a joke name like that, but I am quite happy to hear that you engage with the joke names. So many others either skip them, or attempt to read them in such a way that it ruins the joke.
looks like I'll have to extend my study break
The workers of the imperial core has to organize on the political and economic field. The political field is when a person gets active in those political parties that has ordinary people's interest first and foremost. The economic field is when anyone joins a union or unionizes their place of employment. IMO, unions should come together industrially rather than by one or more trades. The unification of unions into Socialist Industrial unions for the sole purpose of collectively owning the means of production and distribution. Solutions are a system change away.
Finally! A Hakim video on India.
Love the vids bro, keep it up!
Thank you ❤️
Nice, knew you'd like hickel. One thing I've not seen you guys weigh in on yet is degrowth, which is also a big part of Hickel's work, would love to see that video someday. Thanks again for the vids Hakim
There is a quite interesting video from John the Duncan about it ua-cam.com/video/_OslQ6TnijA/v-deo.html
2:34 British colonists came with medicine and new ways to keep people alive. The indian population exploded into starvation. This is not exactly a criticism of capitalism, especially when the whole market is controlled by monopoles.
Cope
@@Commissar_4735 What cope? Neither did I starve nor lose a colony. I'm neither Indian nor English. You go cope, bliat!
Hakim with another information dense video!
Would be cool to see a graph of global poverty starting with the early industrial revolution.
Define Poverty as "Inadequate access to food, water, AND shelter." could also look at population growth in areas.
Modern Poverty should follow a definition closer to "Inadequate access to food, water, shelter, medicine, AND electricity." This'll put a lot more of the west's poor onto the poverty charts which will reflect the conditions the labor workers in the US are experiencing.
Amazing video, comrade! You never fail to debunk the ass out of imperialist arguments!
I've now been fully disillusioned with Steven Pinker.
Also, I'm loving the repeated call to actually go read the article. Now that I think about it, it seems kinda crazy how rarely you get that sort of encouragement, even from science channels.
To be fair, so much academic writing is behind firewalls, especially if it's relatively newly published. But I agree, in general, it would be great to hear people suggesting this as he correct approach to "doing your own research."
I would add Silvia Federici's "Caliban and the Witch" to this argument.
You have a right to live*
*unless you don't have money for that
MOM HAKIM JUST POSTED A NEW VIDEO
Solid video !
I can’t wait to go over the related sources… but sadly I will have to wait two weeks or so.
Babe! New Hakim video!
Ramadan karim!
Could you make a video on how capitalism has affected the falling birth rate in South Korea? (High cost of living and house prices, long working hours etc)? Would be interesting to get your perspective on it
another day another banger vid from hakim
Wake up babe, new Hakim vid just dropped
My favorite is watching liberals mauld at showing this study to them.
Great video as always hakim! Have u and the boys ever thought about trying to get the revolutionary rapper immortal technique on the deprogram? I’d lose my shit lol he’d be an amazing guest on my favorite podcast! Keep up the good work my guy :)
Thank you for your video, Hakim. I found it thought-provoking and well-researched, and I appreciate the sources and evidence you presented.
However, I'm feeling a bit confused because the ideas and perspectives you shared don't seem to align with the prevailing views of the people around me in Norway. Many of my peers here tend to praise politicians like Obama and Bernie, and view countries like Russia and China as oppressive regimes. They often don't see the problems with capitalism and might dismiss my concerns if I raised them.
Do you have any recommendations for articles or resources I could read to better understand the issues you raised, and to share with my friends and colleagues? I would like to learn more and have a more informed and nuanced perspective on these complex issues.
Thank you again for your video, and I look forward to learning more from your future work.