Sir apke lecture mashaallah mashaallah mko bhot help milti hai difficulties ko bilkul asani se solve krdete ho ap apka shukriya 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍😇 thank you soo much Sir 😇
one thing i can say about this man is that he got guts, he is teaching the bourgeois students that mechanism which most of their bourgeois families use (directly or indirectly) to exploit the masses and hence able to achieve that level of profit, which they have achieved, as a consequence of which, several students might even question their families about the exploitive mechanisms they use and the family might think where is he/she getting all this from? PS: don't take personally, this does not apply to everybody, but the majority, many of us are involved in the system indirectly which uses that mechanism, hence this does not imply that the exploitation is being done purposefully.
More efficient machinery more surplus value, lower organic component in production, lower employment. But profit for corporations increase not decrease as Lal argued.
We want a detailed analysis on USSR fall ...i mean explain those points which caused Break of USSR..explain it politically according to world politics and US and Europ VS USSR.
Dear Taimur, Please do an English version of these Soviet Union presentations for the ignorant Western viewer: There are too many histrionic exaggerations about the 'evil Soviet Union in the West, as you well know.
The word 'establishment' is used collectively for judiciary, army and intelligence agencies in Pakistan. The organisational compensation and reward policies of Judiciary and army are like, their workforce get allowances and perks which are many times higher than their salary. Maybe helpful for u!
Red salute sir.I am from India and I have a question... As Marx had said that machineries or the other raw materials are also the outcome of labour as we need to produce those or mould those from natural resources with human effort then how can we say that in capitalism the investment in labour is decreasing and the use of machineries is increasing??Is not the investment in machineries indirectly involves investment in labour.?
Theories could be change with the passage of time by assuming new hypothesis against existing theories. Old methodology has changed with new methodology . Old production machineries has changed with latest machineries and technologies . Now global technical sectors has been challenging into rebortic technologies and industries getting huge production from automission oriented machine than old conservative machines. Now theories has changed at large scale in developed countries.
But the question is are we still living in the classical age of means of production, what about conscious economy, where economy is shifted from physical material place to cyber space
Sir, who creates the value in the modern social media world? it seems it's the people using the social media who are creating the value and also consuming the value.
How can I contact you and be a part of this political party because I’m inherently a person with far left mindset. Hence, I’d love to see our vision come into existence in this country.
سر،جس تھیوری کو مسائل کی صورت میں پیش کیاجاچکاہے اس میں کوئی اختلاف نہیں ہے البتہ جب ان تھیوریزکو پریکٹیکل ہونے کاموقع ملا تو کیاان تھیوریز نے مسائل کو حل کیا یامذید مسائل کاسبب بنا؟
But what are the moral grounds of materialism that capitalism or any other ideology is morally wrong? As materialism reduces mind to synapses , movement of atoms molecules or blind dance of dna. Thus we deduce that ideologies materialism even science itself becomes irrelevent. And we know that communism based on materialism. Please elaborate.
In nyc ,Uber came now ,they put 60 thousands yellow cab driver into poverty. Also uber driver are in poverty too ,driver cant find another job ,they are stuck .uber company making 35 % of fare . Corporate or capitalism is exploiting driver ,government is allowing by taking bribe or lobbying money. This is evil .
Gorbachev ki policy glasnot and perestroika jis se ussr walon ko freedom mila ,osky sath hi sath interest kam pe gareb countries ko loan dena jis se onki khud ki economy kamzur hui ,wall of Berlin as a symbol of shame surve kia , along with phle stalin ky kiye hui zulam (death of more then 20 million people),es se ussr at the end sustain nh karpaya...
Dr taimur rahman salam,few questions 1.i heard religion will not tolerated in karl marx society, could you please clarify . 2.why all the marxist revolution dictator end up in powe ,like china,ussr stalin ,cuba castro ,italy Mussolini 3.if we have revolution, and end up in like stalin then i dont want that revolution. Please answer
M Kib Socialist states do not follow the same model of democracy as the capitalist system. That is why capitalist countries do not consider them democracies.
Dr. Taimur up till now the fact is nothing had happen to capitalism and Socialism is not successful. Even China has allowed private investment and has become substantial part of its growth. Can you explain it. Also I am wondering what is empirical evidence that that dialectical methodology is dominating in philosophy. This comments is simple for my understanding as a layman.
Quite an absurd argument that capital intensive productions will dampen surplus and therefore rate of profit decline. If you are saying that capital intensive productions will.reduce surplus value of labour. Then your argument might hold
Sir according to the author of the hundread most influential persons he says about Karl Marx that most of the economic theories of Karl Marx are proved wrong .
Hahaha...he is(author of most influential people) is a cunt his theories not proven wrong anywhere instead he proved everything scientifically please go and study das capitas and other books of karl markx....
Before debating about whether ussr proved or disproved marx, kindly check whether they followed anything that marx said. USSR was failure from start as it didn't followed basic Marxist principles about communism. Marx said capitalism will be intermediate stage between feudalism and communism, which means first capitalism must exist in country to proceed to communism. Which wasn't case with USSR it was backwards country with very low industrialization. Later when it carried out industrialization, it destroyed second Marxist principle, that communism can't take place and can't sustain in one country. Revolution in all developed capitalists countries must take place. Stalin's "socialism in one country" Policy was thus utter tomfoolery and kind of assholism. Lenin knew that and hence he was ready to wait till revolution happens in other countries however stalin destroyed this policy by abolishing world communism and here it's collapse started. So don't behave like bourgeoisie. Those States which were real communist states worked like wonders to such extent that ruler class had to supress them brutally and they afterwards never talked about them neither taught about it in schools so that workers won't get its information. Examples of them are Paris commune and revolutionary Catalonia. It's duty of those who claim to be "marxists" To spread information about these states rather than talking about USSR, China and such vulgarisers of communism, leave this work to bourgeoisie!
I'm not a scholar, but, IMHO, revolutions are not "organised" by decisons of party leaders. They are caused by certain historical reasons, this is the Marxist approach, correct me, if I am wrong. The Russian revolution was unavoidable, that is why its history is relevant until now. The major issue is the fact that most people learn history from various Western sources (i. e., "bourgeois" sources). Besides of that, the most developed countries exploit the 3rd World quite successfully, and their population (the population of the 1st World) is interested in their own "stability". They don't want and don't need any revolutions. 70 years of the Soviet history is just a tiny moment. Also, I don't think that Catalonia is the most industrialized country of the modern world.
@@andrey-uf1tg I never said that revolution can be "organized" by any party. That would be called as coup by party and not a revolution. And that's what Bolsheviks did. Much celebrated October revolution was coup. Bolshevik idea always have been to create a party of "professional revolutionaries" Which will "represent" People on whole. 70 years of history isn't necessarily tiny in modern times, where world is so dynamic. In same 70 years many governments came and fell. In very few years in 19th century, feudalism received it's final blow and in turn of 20th century capitalism was thriving.Fate of various ideologies, including facism was decided in same century. USSR had it's time to show stuff to world, while they remarkably did things better on some fronts, like bringing feudal country to status of superpower, they failed to achieve goals of socialism. Also Catalonia is not a country. It's highly developed region in Spain which was center of social revolution in 1936. While revolution had spread to most of Spain, it was at it's peak in Catalonia, because this region was fairly developed even at that time. While fighting against facism, Spanish workers got rid of both clerics and capitalists, owning their factories and running businesses as community through unions .It was most radical experiment, which has been deliberately ignored and forgotten by liberals, because it was way too dangerous for them. To be sure, Russian revolution was moving to the same path in it's early years, with workers struggling to get hold over economy through factory committees, until Bolshevik and company destroyed their goals by deliberately bringing in bourgeois managers. I'd suggest u to research on both of these topics. If u are into books, then homage to Catalonia by George Orwell, and memoirs of revolutionary by Victor Serge might be good reads. These books aren't written by someone who sits in AC room and spit their philosophy on paper, but are personal experiences of people who actually lived through Spanish and Russian revolutions respectively.Thanks
@@shubhamwr Thanks for your detailed reply and for your advice. I know that Catalonia is a Spanish province, but I did not understand that you had meant the Spanish Civil War, and not current events. Soviet volunteers took part in that war and, as far as I know, there were some contradictions between them and POUM that was close to Trotskyites. Generally speaking, in many countries there are many leftist groups, and every of such groups consider itself the only real communist party in the world and accuses other parties of bourgeois ideology. E. g., Trotsky during the last years of his life was not familiar with the real situation in the Soviet Union, but continued to criticize it (the situation). Speaking of the revolution or the "coup", as you all it, I want to stress that it was a grass-roots movement to a great extent. Many people do not think of the fact that Bolsheviks were a small party before 1917. (The most popular and significant party was the socialist revolutionary party- SRs). In 1917 the Russian emperor was not supported even by monarchists, who thought that he was unable to rule the country, that's why he had to abdicate. Workers wanted to get rid of capitalists, just like peasants wanted to get rid of their landowners. Speaking of the WWI, even many officers realized that the war was beneficial to Britain and France, but not to Russia. The majority of the population supported the Bolsheviks because their slogans coincided with people's interests. The life of the majority after the revolution changed for the better, despite the problems that arose during collectivization, mass repressions, etc. That is why the Soviet Union did not collapse during the WWII, as the Russian Empire did during the WWI. It's a mistake to separate the party from the rest of the people. The history of the USSR should serve as a positive example of an attempt to build a socialist state. The problem is that all the negative aspects were exaggerated in capitalist countries for clear reasons. In fact, it was not only anti-Soviet, but (what is more important) anti-communist propaganda, and those who conducted it were ready to support both Trotsky who was a communist and ultra-conservative Solzhenitsyn. Russian and Soviet emigrants couldn't tell a lot of positive things about the country they had left. It's still a big question if they were objective or not, isn't it? Don't you think, they might be somewhat biased? At the same time, most people didn't want to leave the country. Why should I be against the Soviet system? My great-grandparents were almost illiterate peasents, whereas my parents graduated from university, and grandparents received an apartment for free. By the way, there were no communists among them. And now, when Russia became a capitalist state, such things are impossible. Socialism (it's a transitional stage between capitalism and communism) can't emerge all of a sudden in all the countries. We live in a globalized world, and a separate country cannot be economically (and even ideologically) fully independent from the rest of the world. The collapse of the USSR was not something unique. Even after a bourgeois revolution in France monarchy was restored. Thanks again and good luck.
@@andrey-uf1tg Good day and thanks for reply! I agree with some of ur points, but still there seem to be few correction. Soviet volunteer, I doubt to what extent they were volunteers because even if they were theoretically, they were essentially following command from Moscow in exchange of arms provided by USSR, had not some, but huge deal of different motives from not only POUM but other revolutionary factions fighting same war. Immediate goal of communists there can be summarised as to bury social revolution and to bring Spain under fingure of Moscow, Stalin clearly didn't want any parallel revolution following other path, becoming somewhat successful in demonstrating end phase of socialism, while USSR was still stuck between it's "transitioning" Phase from capitalism to distant utopia communism, which no one had idea when it will come. It's not me who is saying this, but communists themselves had declared it more and less, that "we are not here for winning revolution, we are here to bring liberal democracy, not a revolution". What kind of betrayal was this. From above example, if it's to be true that revolution has to be grassroot movement of people, and not a thing which is organized by party, then soviet communists are clearly exposed. Grassroot movement was already taking place and struggling hard to win, it'd be duty of any socialists to support it, which other factions of socialism did very well. What's point of saying "it's not yet a time for revolution" Then? Who were they to "decide" Time for revolution, and how can we say such a party actually represents people and can't be separated from them. Indeed any party can be separated from people. To talk about USSR itself, there was disgust in rank and file Bolsheviks themselves against what leaders were doing. Many people did suicide for that. Many others were expelled for differing from "party line". Some were even sentenced to death, people like victor serge and gorky had to lobby hard to prevent unnecessary innocent deaths. Also I'm talking October " Revolution " As coup, in which provisional government was overthrown not the earlier one. There was nothing like revolution in it. People didn't participate en masse, most didn't even knew that government is no more and it was pretty easy to get rid of provisional government. Future elections were highly interfered by Bolsheviks, even going as far as to declare election invalid when other factions like mensheviks were seemed getting upper hand. After civil war, some regions in which mensheviks ruled by getting democratic votes, they were asked to surrender their arms to party, failing so they faced attacks. How can such a party represent people? Not to mention there was resistance to Bolsheviks themselves. There were hundreds of strikes when party started interfering in factory committees, at last making them illegal, not to mention about Kronstadt, which was not even violent at start until orders were given to crush them. Of course I don't deny that USSR improve economic conditions. In my earlier comment itself I mentioned that USSR did great thing of bringing highly feudal country to superpower. It's remarkable achievement indeed. But there's nothing special in it, as what we are talking about is socialism, not economic growths. Economic growth and military power can be achieved in variety of ways. Hitler for example, was able to do so with war sick Germany. Or, if u want mild examples then talk about India, though still being relatively poor, it has jumped great deal after 150 years of British colonialism, pulling millions of people out of poverty. Or Singapore, land which was to be deemed as impossible to build a country, but now it's one of wealthiest regions in world. Also my views are not based on reading any western media, or capitalist news outlets. I'm Socialist, why should I read them. My views are based on criticisms of Soviet Union, not from right, but from left. When I was inspired by socialism, like everyone I was also inspired by USSR. I even have been member of communist Party, following leninism in my country. They emphasized alot on Lenin's and Stalin's teachings and so did I. Of course party used to glorify all events, but I don't follow things blindly. When I started researching independently I could learn many more things that party would never have let it workers to know. Obviously I said good bye later on. Also on a last point, yes bourgeois revolution failed in France, twice in fact. However timing also matters. First, It failed in a coup, and not due to instability of system. Second it failed shortly after it was established, in couple of years, if it had failed after say 70years due to internal matters, then without even doubt everyone would mark system itself as a failure. Similarly, if USSR had failed in civil war, or say western invasion after 1917,then without doubt it would deserve all kinds of respect. But when something fails after staggering 70years, it's nothing but a failure. One can literally fool others that we are "transitioning to communism" Each time someone asks, clevers know communism is never coming by that. Grassroot movements don't require 70+ years to make such transition. As seen in both Spain and Paris, couple of days are enough for them to reach initials of high ends if not high ends completely. PS: "socialism as transitionary phase between capitalism and communism" Was created by lenin himself for their own covert benefit. There was no such difference between socialism and communism before 1917s, if u carefully look. Hell, thing called as "communist Party" Itself was non existent before 1917, in entire world
@@shubhamwr Thanks again. There are a couple of remarks. Lenin did nothing for his own benefit. Obviously, he became a revolutionary before 1917, at that time nobody was able to foresee that he would become a leader, but it was clear, that revolutionaries were persecuted. Both Lenin and Stalin were in jail and in exile, and the were no guarantees that some day in the future they would be leaders of the countries. "It isn't yet the time for the revution" was just what the Mensheviks said. Both Paris and Spain were not ready for a successful revolution, that is why they failed. It was clear, and it was not only Stalin who understood this. Communism it is not the way the country is ruled. It is a socio-economic formation. Everything is much more complicated than you imagine, but I cannot lecture you on economics and historical materialism. All of this is not described in Orwell's books.
Ye baat mohammad sun leta to sharminda ho jata ....Ki hm kaise btaye aane wale logo ko kaise socialism lana h....Wo hmse jyada samjhdaar honge Ulta mohammad ne to apne hisab se btaya h ki jo jaisa kah rha hoon wo kiya to thik nhi to.....La ilah lol
How does the rate of profit decrease with time, when in reality the corporations have seen increased profit over time and more income gaps, due to AI, and less reliance on labor?
Tendency to fall of the rate of profit isn't Marx's theory, but it has it's origin from Adam Smith and also David Ricardo. The tendency to fall of the rate of profit is based on the increase of constant value in the production process. to understand that you have to understand where profit comes from, and that's the surplus value. To understand how it works you have to understand how a commodity gets produced So, take example of this Constant capital + Variable capital ( workers' labour ) + Surplus value = product . So, as you've mentioned the profit is increasing and income gap are also increasing and new technologies are developing more automated production system. This is an example of this theory, The capitalists to achieve more profit invest more and more to produce the product at cheaper prices. And this process where they invest more on automation/machinery/technology decreases the human ' labour which creates the surplus value. Thus Capitalist development increases the constant capital in the production process. Which decreases the Variable capital which creates the new value where profit comes from. The logical definition of this development is an automated economy. Where capitalist enterprises will have no means to aquire profit.
![Mod Phil 9: Religion is the Opium of the Masses [Urdu]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X9CwaE0joLc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Mod Phil 9: Religion is the Opium of the Masses [Urdu]](/img/tr.png)
I am truly surprised how one can explain such a complex subject with that simple way. Brilliant...
Dr taimur, ek number .. this lockdown i will come out a better learned about communism .. thanks to you
@Syed Nayab Same with me!
Amazed by the way you explained such complex topic in simple layman's terms.
Red salute from india. Pls make a video on employment policy of USSR.
Helpful for Indian viewers
Tareeq-itihas
Sarmayadari-punjivaad
Nizam-vayvastha
Khatam-annt
Jadeed-aadhunik
Bhot acha
Best Hindi/Urdu channel on Marxism.
Being simple on things scholarly, Dr your talk is addictive!
so far i am addicted to your lecture..plz keep on going
Sir apke lecture mashaallah mashaallah mko bhot help milti hai difficulties ko bilkul asani se solve krdete ho ap apka shukriya 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍😇 thank you soo much Sir 😇
Sir. you have wonderful Knowledge I love yo listen your Lectures. you are Great assets for Pakistan
Brilliantly summed up. Keep up the good work sir.
one thing i can say about this man is that he got guts, he is teaching the bourgeois students that mechanism which most of their bourgeois families use (directly or indirectly) to exploit the masses and hence able to achieve that level of profit, which they have achieved, as a consequence of which, several students might even question their families about the exploitive mechanisms they use and the family might think where is he/she getting all this from?
PS: don't take personally, this does not apply to everybody, but the majority, many of us are involved in the system indirectly which uses that mechanism, hence this does not imply that the exploitation is being done purposefully.
Sir your lectures always proven productive for us it really help us understanding these difficult topics easily may God bless you and your family
Brilliant explanation Dr. Rahman!
Simply marvellous.
great !
Thank you Taimur for this video .
Sir could you please make a separate video on Dialectical Materialism in English.
I Appreciate your efforts sir. Sir kindly also make a video on the causes of USSR’s break up ..
Very knowledgeable lecture.....
TO THE POINT ANSWER. THANKS COMRADE
Nice, thanks
More efficient machinery more surplus value, lower organic component in production, lower employment. But profit for corporations increase not decrease as Lal argued.
You are a gem Sir
Whenever I feel boring of my subject I watch ur licture..
We want a detailed analysis on USSR fall ...i mean explain those points which caused Break of USSR..explain it politically according to world politics and US and Europ VS USSR.
USSR me economy kaise kaam karti thi matlab log saaman ki khareed farokht kaise karte they or car,house lene ke liye kitna waqt lagta tha?
Sir, kindly consider discussing the USSR in detail including Joseph Stalin's role. Also, what are your views on North Korea? Thank you.
Masha Allah
Very good
Dear Taimur, Please do an English version of these Soviet Union presentations for the ignorant Western viewer: There are too many histrionic exaggerations about the 'evil Soviet Union in the West, as you well know.
One word..
Gulag.
@@PWizz91 Ignorant fool. Typical.
Up vote
love u .
خیر منگاں سوھنیاں تیری
دعا نہ کوئی ھور منگدا
Awesome
Gud
Sir make some vadeos on the fundamental perspective of sociology.Functinalism , conflict and symbolic.
sir please upload your lectures at Jacques derrida and Michel foucault philosophy of discourse
Dr. Sb. Same concept can be applied on some other system/idealog that practical use or implementation was incorrect instead the system.
Yaar ... Im so thankful! Engineering parh parh ke dmagh kharab ho gya hai ...
I like all of your video
Whoa, amazing.
Sir you should make a video on establishment who control the country behind democracy or what's establishment
The word 'establishment' is used collectively for judiciary, army and intelligence agencies in Pakistan. The organisational compensation and reward policies of Judiciary and army are like, their workforce get allowances and perks which are many times higher than their salary. Maybe helpful for u!
Dr.rahman you are great.i see your all videos.keep making video on Karl marx.
Red salute sir.I am from India and I have a question...
As Marx had said that machineries or the other raw materials are also the outcome of labour as we need to produce those or mould those from natural resources with human effort then how can we say that in capitalism the investment in labour is decreasing and the use of machineries is increasing??Is not the investment in machineries indirectly involves investment in labour.?
Bahooot Khoob
Theories could be change with the passage of time by assuming new hypothesis against existing theories.
Old methodology has changed with new methodology .
Old production machineries has changed with latest machineries and technologies .
Now global technical sectors has been challenging into rebortic technologies and industries getting huge production from automission oriented machine than old conservative machines.
Now theories has changed at large scale in developed countries.
Dr.sb tussi kithay ho ajkal?
Love you sir ❤
But the question is are we still living in the classical age of means of production, what about conscious economy, where economy is shifted from physical material place to cyber space
Sir, who creates the value in the modern social media world? it seems it's the people using the social media who are creating the value and also consuming the value.
i love your watch
How can I contact you and be a part of this political party because I’m inherently a person with far left mindset. Hence, I’d love to see our vision come into existence in this country.
Comrade we want lectures on neutral history of subcontinent,partion & communist role pre partition and post partition.
سر،جس تھیوری کو مسائل کی صورت میں پیش کیاجاچکاہے اس میں کوئی اختلاف نہیں ہے البتہ جب ان تھیوریزکو پریکٹیکل ہونے کاموقع ملا تو کیاان تھیوریز نے مسائل کو حل کیا یامذید مسائل کاسبب بنا؟
Best
But what are the moral grounds of materialism that capitalism or any other ideology is morally wrong? As materialism reduces mind to synapses , movement of atoms molecules or blind dance of dna. Thus we deduce that ideologies materialism even science itself becomes irrelevent. And we know that communism based on materialism. Please elaborate.
In nyc ,Uber came now ,they put 60 thousands yellow cab driver into poverty. Also uber driver are in poverty too ,driver cant find another job ,they are stuck .uber company making 35 % of fare . Corporate or capitalism is exploiting driver ,government is allowing by taking bribe or lobbying money. This is evil .
Volume increases while the profit decreases
Dr taimur, i think the term is fix capital ( machine , raw materials) and variable capital( labour)
No. Fixed capital is a different term used by Smith.
please use easy urdu in your videos, are you aware of the fact that you have thousands of fans in India and Bangladesh?
🙏🙏🙏🙏
Red salute Sir, I want to meet you. If I come to LUMS,then how I can contact you? Please Reply sir
Email me.
Thanks so muCh Sir, Your email?
I don't want to type it here or I will get too much spam mail. It is on LUMS website. You can easily find it.
Yeah,Ok sir I have sent you🙂
Red Salute to comrade!!!!!
My elder brother resembles you 95% 😃
Gorbachev ki policy glasnot and perestroika jis se ussr walon ko freedom mila ,osky sath hi sath interest kam pe gareb countries ko loan dena jis se onki khud ki economy kamzur hui ,wall of Berlin as a symbol of shame surve kia , along with phle stalin ky kiye hui zulam (death of more then 20 million people),es se ussr at the end sustain nh karpaya...
Sir, what about proletarian , who creat utopian society and another synthesis cannot develop. Now where is last synthesis......
السلام علیکم۔ سر سوشل ازم کے بارے میں کوئی کتاب تجویز کر دیں۔ شکریہ
Communist manifesto se start Karain. Aur Marxist.org website se apko material mil Jaye ga.
@@zainulabdin33 THANK YOU
@@abdullahmuhammad4744 🙏
Dr taimur rahman salam,few questions
1.i heard religion will not tolerated in karl marx society, could you please clarify .
2.why all the marxist revolution dictator end up in powe ,like china,ussr stalin ,cuba castro ,italy Mussolini
3.if we have revolution, and end up in like stalin then i dont want that revolution.
Please answer
M Kib All religious practice and non-practice is protected in a socialist state. A socialist state follows the principles of secularism.
M Kib Mussolini was a fascist not communist.
M Kib Socialist states do not follow the same model of democracy as the capitalist system. That is why capitalist countries do not consider them democracies.
M Kib Don’t worry. A socialist society will not decrease but increase freedoms.
Please make video on disintegration of USSR..
People might argue that Marx was wrong but My Hypothesis is that he's not entirely wrong!
system koi bhi jab tak person level par log awaam honest nhi hongay to sab bekaar hai
ye sirf Allah k dar/ relogion practice se hi ho sakta hai
سوشلزم عملی طور پر تو ناکام ہوئی، اب بطور تھیوری وہ صحیح ہے یا نہیں یہ الگ بحث ہے۔
If you get time , please talk about the critics of Marxism.
Dr. Taimur up till now the fact is nothing had happen to capitalism and Socialism is not successful. Even China has allowed private investment and has become substantial part of its growth. Can you explain it. Also I am wondering what is empirical evidence that that dialectical methodology is dominating in philosophy.
This comments is simple for my understanding as a layman.
Quite an absurd argument that capital intensive productions will dampen surplus and therefore rate of profit decline. If you are saying that capital intensive productions will.reduce surplus value of labour. Then your argument might hold
Sir according to the author of the hundread most influential persons he says about Karl Marx that most of the economic theories of Karl Marx are proved wrong .
Hahaha...he is(author of most influential people) is a cunt his theories not proven wrong anywhere instead he proved everything scientifically please go and study das capitas and other books of karl markx....
Lal salam,ehi gall punjabi wich v dasso
EXplain USSR communism VS Europe, US capitalism ..
Labour is biggest cost more machines is more profit Karl Marx was wrong
Before debating about whether ussr proved or disproved marx, kindly check whether they followed anything that marx said. USSR was failure from start as it didn't followed basic Marxist principles about communism. Marx said capitalism will be intermediate stage between feudalism and communism, which means first capitalism must exist in country to proceed to communism. Which wasn't case with USSR it was backwards country with very low industrialization. Later when it carried out industrialization, it destroyed second Marxist principle, that communism can't take place and can't sustain in one country. Revolution in all developed capitalists countries must take place. Stalin's "socialism in one country" Policy was thus utter tomfoolery and kind of assholism. Lenin knew that and hence he was ready to wait till revolution happens in other countries however stalin destroyed this policy by abolishing world communism and here it's collapse started.
So don't behave like bourgeoisie. Those States which were real communist states worked like wonders to such extent that ruler class had to supress them brutally and they afterwards never talked about them neither taught about it in schools so that workers won't get its information. Examples of them are Paris commune and revolutionary Catalonia. It's duty of those who claim to be "marxists" To spread information about these states rather than talking about USSR, China and such vulgarisers of communism, leave this work to bourgeoisie!
I'm not a scholar, but, IMHO, revolutions are not "organised" by decisons of party leaders. They are caused by certain historical reasons, this is the Marxist approach, correct me, if I am wrong. The Russian revolution was unavoidable, that is why its history is relevant until now. The major issue is the fact that most people learn history from various Western sources (i. e., "bourgeois" sources). Besides of that, the most developed countries exploit the 3rd World quite successfully, and their population (the population of the 1st World) is interested in their own "stability". They don't want and don't need any revolutions. 70 years of the Soviet history is just a tiny moment. Also, I don't think that Catalonia is the most industrialized country of the modern world.
@@andrey-uf1tg I never said that revolution can be "organized" by any party. That would be called as coup by party and not a revolution. And that's what Bolsheviks did. Much celebrated October revolution was coup. Bolshevik idea always have been to create a party of "professional revolutionaries" Which will "represent" People on whole.
70 years of history isn't necessarily tiny in modern times, where world is so dynamic. In same 70 years many governments came and fell. In very few years in 19th century, feudalism received it's final blow and in turn of 20th century capitalism was thriving.Fate of various ideologies, including facism was decided in same century. USSR had it's time to show stuff to world, while they remarkably did things better on some fronts, like bringing feudal country to status of superpower, they failed to achieve goals of socialism.
Also Catalonia is not a country. It's highly developed region in Spain which was center of social revolution in 1936. While revolution had spread to most of Spain, it was at it's peak in Catalonia, because this region was fairly developed even at that time. While fighting against facism, Spanish workers got rid of both clerics and capitalists, owning their factories and running businesses as community through unions .It was most radical experiment, which has been deliberately ignored and forgotten by liberals, because it was way too dangerous for them. To be sure, Russian revolution was moving to the same path in it's early years, with workers struggling to get hold over economy through factory committees, until Bolshevik and company destroyed their goals by deliberately bringing in bourgeois managers. I'd suggest u to research on both of these topics. If u are into books, then homage to Catalonia by George Orwell, and memoirs of revolutionary by Victor Serge might be good reads. These books aren't written by someone who sits in AC room and spit their philosophy on paper, but are personal experiences of people who actually lived through Spanish and Russian revolutions respectively.Thanks
@@shubhamwr Thanks for your detailed reply and for your advice. I know that Catalonia is a Spanish province, but I did not understand that you had meant the Spanish Civil War, and not current events. Soviet volunteers took part in that war and, as far as I know, there were some contradictions between them and POUM that was close to Trotskyites. Generally speaking, in many countries there are many leftist groups, and every of such groups consider itself the only real communist party in the world and accuses other parties of bourgeois ideology. E. g., Trotsky during the last years of his life was not familiar with the real situation in the Soviet Union, but continued to criticize it (the situation). Speaking of the revolution or the "coup", as you all it, I want to stress that it was a grass-roots movement to a great extent. Many people do not think of the fact that Bolsheviks were a small party before 1917. (The most popular and significant party was the socialist revolutionary party- SRs). In 1917 the Russian emperor was not supported even by monarchists, who thought that he was unable to rule the country, that's why he had to abdicate. Workers wanted to get rid of capitalists, just like peasants wanted to get rid of their landowners. Speaking of the WWI, even many officers realized that the war was beneficial to Britain and France, but not to Russia. The majority of the population supported the Bolsheviks because their slogans coincided with people's interests. The life of the majority after the revolution changed for the better, despite the problems that arose during collectivization, mass repressions, etc. That is why the Soviet Union did not collapse during the WWII, as the Russian Empire did during the WWI. It's a mistake to separate the party from the rest of the people. The history of the USSR should serve as a positive example of an attempt to build a socialist state. The problem is that all the negative aspects were exaggerated in capitalist countries for clear reasons. In fact, it was not only anti-Soviet, but (what is more important) anti-communist propaganda, and those who conducted it were ready to support both Trotsky who was a communist and ultra-conservative Solzhenitsyn. Russian and Soviet emigrants couldn't tell a lot of positive things about the country they had left. It's still a big question if they were objective or not, isn't it? Don't you think, they might be somewhat biased? At the same time, most people didn't want to leave the country. Why should I be against the Soviet system? My great-grandparents were almost illiterate peasents, whereas my parents graduated from university, and grandparents received an apartment for free. By the way, there were no communists among them. And now, when Russia became a capitalist state, such things are impossible. Socialism (it's a transitional stage between capitalism and communism) can't emerge all of a sudden in all the countries. We live in a globalized world, and a separate country cannot be economically (and even ideologically) fully independent from the rest of the world. The collapse of the USSR was not something unique. Even after a bourgeois revolution in France monarchy was restored. Thanks again and good luck.
@@andrey-uf1tg Good day and thanks for reply! I agree with some of ur points, but still there seem to be few correction. Soviet volunteer, I doubt to what extent they were volunteers because even if they were theoretically, they were essentially following command from Moscow in exchange of arms provided by USSR, had not some, but huge deal of different motives from not only POUM but other revolutionary factions fighting same war. Immediate goal of communists there can be summarised as to bury social revolution and to bring Spain under fingure of Moscow, Stalin clearly didn't want any parallel revolution following other path, becoming somewhat successful in demonstrating end phase of socialism, while USSR was still stuck between it's "transitioning" Phase from capitalism to distant utopia communism, which no one had idea when it will come. It's not me who is saying this, but communists themselves had declared it more and less, that "we are not here for winning revolution, we are here to bring liberal democracy, not a revolution". What kind of betrayal was this.
From above example, if it's to be true that revolution has to be grassroot movement of people, and not a thing which is organized by party, then soviet communists are clearly exposed. Grassroot movement was already taking place and struggling hard to win, it'd be duty of any socialists to support it, which other factions of socialism did very well. What's point of saying "it's not yet a time for revolution" Then? Who were they to "decide" Time for revolution, and how can we say such a party actually represents people and can't be separated from them.
Indeed any party can be separated from people. To talk about USSR itself, there was disgust in rank and file Bolsheviks themselves against what leaders were doing. Many people did suicide for that. Many others were expelled for differing from "party line". Some were even sentenced to death, people like victor serge and gorky had to lobby hard to prevent unnecessary innocent deaths.
Also I'm talking October " Revolution " As coup, in which provisional government was overthrown not the earlier one. There was nothing like revolution in it. People didn't participate en masse, most didn't even knew that government is no more and it was pretty easy to get rid of provisional government. Future elections were highly interfered by Bolsheviks, even going as far as to declare election invalid when other factions like mensheviks were seemed getting upper hand. After civil war, some regions in which mensheviks ruled by getting democratic votes, they were asked to surrender their arms to party, failing so they faced attacks. How can such a party represent people? Not to mention there was resistance to Bolsheviks themselves. There were hundreds of strikes when party started interfering in factory committees, at last making them illegal, not to mention about Kronstadt, which was not even violent at start until orders were given to crush them.
Of course I don't deny that USSR improve economic conditions. In my earlier comment itself I mentioned that USSR did great thing of bringing highly feudal country to superpower. It's remarkable achievement indeed. But there's nothing special in it, as what we are talking about is socialism, not economic growths. Economic growth and military power can be achieved in variety of ways. Hitler for example, was able to do so with war sick Germany. Or, if u want mild examples then talk about India, though still being relatively poor, it has jumped great deal after 150 years of British colonialism, pulling millions of people out of poverty. Or Singapore, land which was to be deemed as impossible to build a country, but now it's one of wealthiest regions in world.
Also my views are not based on reading any western media, or capitalist news outlets. I'm Socialist, why should I read them. My views are based on criticisms of Soviet Union, not from right, but from left. When I was inspired by socialism, like everyone I was also inspired by USSR. I even have been member of communist Party, following leninism in my country. They emphasized alot on Lenin's and Stalin's teachings and so did I. Of course party used to glorify all events, but I don't follow things blindly. When I started researching independently I could learn many more things that party would never have let it workers to know. Obviously I said good bye later on.
Also on a last point, yes bourgeois revolution failed in France, twice in fact. However timing also matters. First, It failed in a coup, and not due to instability of system. Second it failed shortly after it was established, in couple of years, if it had failed after say 70years due to internal matters, then without even doubt everyone would mark system itself as a failure. Similarly, if USSR had failed in civil war, or say western invasion after 1917,then without doubt it would deserve all kinds of respect. But when something fails after staggering 70years, it's nothing but a failure. One can literally fool others that we are "transitioning to communism" Each time someone asks, clevers know communism is never coming by that. Grassroot movements don't require 70+ years to make such transition. As seen in both Spain and Paris, couple of days are enough for them to reach initials of high ends if not high ends completely.
PS: "socialism as transitionary phase between capitalism and communism" Was created by lenin himself for their own covert benefit. There was no such difference between socialism and communism before 1917s, if u carefully look. Hell, thing called as "communist Party" Itself was non existent before 1917, in entire world
@@shubhamwr Thanks again. There are a couple of remarks. Lenin did nothing for his own benefit. Obviously, he became a revolutionary before 1917, at that time nobody was able to foresee that he would become a leader, but it was clear, that revolutionaries were persecuted. Both Lenin and Stalin were in jail and in exile, and the were no guarantees that some day in the future they would be leaders of the countries. "It isn't yet the time for the revution" was just what the Mensheviks said. Both Paris and Spain were not ready for a successful revolution, that is why they failed. It was clear, and it was not only Stalin who understood this. Communism it is not the way the country is ruled. It is a socio-economic formation. Everything is much more complicated than you imagine, but I cannot lecture you on economics and historical materialism. All of this is not described in Orwell's books.
Capitalism 👍
Communism ka sabse badi negativity ye hai isse naukarshahi paida hoti hai
Ye baat mohammad sun leta to sharminda ho jata ....Ki hm kaise btaye aane wale logo ko kaise socialism lana h....Wo hmse jyada samjhdaar honge
Ulta mohammad ne to apne hisab se btaya h ki jo jaisa kah rha hoon wo kiya to thik nhi to.....La ilah lol
How does the rate of profit decrease with time, when in reality the corporations have seen increased profit over time and more income gaps, due to AI, and less reliance on labor?
Tendency to fall of the rate of profit isn't Marx's theory, but it has it's origin from Adam Smith and also David Ricardo. The tendency to fall of the rate of profit is based on the increase of constant value in the production process. to understand that you have to understand where profit comes from, and that's the surplus value. To understand how it works you have to understand how a commodity gets produced
So, take example of this
Constant capital + Variable capital ( workers' labour ) + Surplus value = product . So, as you've mentioned the profit is increasing and income gap are also increasing and new technologies are developing more automated production system. This is an example of this theory, The capitalists to achieve more profit invest more and more to produce the product at cheaper prices. And this process where they invest more on automation/machinery/technology decreases the human ' labour which creates the surplus value. Thus Capitalist development increases the constant capital in the production process. Which decreases the Variable capital which creates the new value where profit comes from. The logical definition of this development is an automated economy. Where capitalist enterprises will have no means to aquire profit.
🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
Are you communist ?
Pappu Bhai yes.
Marx ki chatna band kr
Only solution is islamic economic system
Taimoor sb I am ready to debate with because you are misguiding the youth in LUMS