Karl Marx Life and Philosophy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Visit my new website: www.wescecil.com A lecture on the life and philosophy of Karl Marx delivered at Peninsula College by Wesley Cecil, Ph.D.
Download the lecture handout at www.wescecil.co...
For information on upcoming lectures, essays, and books by Wesley Cecil Ph.D. go to / humanearts
www.wescecil.com
For the algorithm. This channel should be way bigger than it is. Good teachers are hard to find.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
Wow, there are a lot of ignorant people on here. Adam Smith's conception of capitalism does not resemble modern capitalism in any but the most broad concepts. And surprise, the same is true of Marx. Stalin does not equal Marx, and Reagan does not equal Smith. Its as simple as that.
It'd be like if people said Jesus was directly responsible or the same as Jim Jones, because Jones used Jesus' teachings for his culty crap. Like...Marx's thinking and Smith's thinking were more nuanced than that.
@@JSmusiqalthinka Check out Emma Goldman's take on Jesus
Oh my god, anyone who thinks Adam Smith's ideas have anything to do with how modern economies work is truly out to lunch.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
@@thesensiblesocialist well, some ideas still do. For example alienation of labor, that was later borrowed by Marx. Originally it was mentioned by Smith.
Cecil's lectures are without personal bias. I like that.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
I know someday I want to become a teacher, this lecture is so well done and presented that Dr. Cecil has become one of my teaching role models.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Are you a teacher yet?
@@deleted01 legit I also want to know 😄 .. I will finish my teaching degree in approx 2 more years.. so if you’re hungry for the long game. Check in with me in a couple of years 😅
Where are you, Professor Sterling? We've been waiting 7 years, sir.
@@jayburton1387 working on my credentials. I’m about to finish my MBA and starting the second Masters soon. Teaching at a university is still one of my goals. People need to know and see that dyslexia and Attention Deficit Disorders are not a reason to shy away from academia.
He prophesized the current state of the United States.
Marx warned that in the later stages of capitalism huge corporations would exercise a monopoly on global markets. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe,” he wrote. “It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” These corporations, whether in the banking sector, the agricultural and food industries, the arms industries or the communications industries, would use their power, usually by seizing the mechanisms of state, to prevent anyone from challenging their monopoly. They would fix prices to maximize profit. They would, as they [have been doing], push through trade deals such as the TPP and CAFTA to further weaken the nation-state’s ability to impede exploitation by imposing environmental regulations or monitoring working conditions. And in the end these corporate monopolies would obliterate free market competition.
Johnny Salter a true free market would not allow a monopoly. The only monopolies we have are coercive, i.e a result of government subsidies and government legislatures that give corporations the power to lockout competitors.
No a free market wouldn't. But if anyone is against a free markjet it's the capitalist. In regard to their own business. They appreciate the Free Markt if everyone has else has to follow it.
Johnny Salter He himself wished to exploit the very means of the Capitalist system to make the lives of the workers as hard as possible, if only to speeds up their hatred and dissatisfaction. He said things that had already been said, and the system he developed is founded on hatred and lack of self, which leads to the steps of Communism we've seen in the past
You need to read what he said and not what the capitalist say about him. Learn for yourself instead of a simple parrot. I don't agree with everything he said but the MF was one of the most brilliant people to ever live.
What this whole debate boils down to is an argument about corruption. Free markets have their form of corruptions, and so does marxism, and both are pretty much unwanted yet inevitable. Thing is, marxist corruption tends to lead huge amounts of poverty, death and curtailing of freedom. Capitalist corruption is really annoying and evil, but it still doesn't lead to crushing poverty and death. We have to settle for the lesser evil and try everything we can to improve it. Marxist systems don't even give you that chance.
Little known fact: Karl Marx had a sister who invented the starter pistol. Her name was Anya.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
Get set
What a blatant lie, Marx had siblings and none called Anya.
Brother 🥹🥹🥹
Not many know of his brothers Harpo, Groucho, Zeppo and chico. Sometimes gummo
That was probably the simplest explanation of dialectical materialism I've ever heard.
Majority of plebs causing arguments here just typed in 'Marx' in youtube to start a fight.
Guaranteed you act first think later, like true keyboard warriors.
Listen to the words Wes is saying.. You may not agree with Marx, in fact you don't have to, but he contributed a cohesive and critical understanding of Man's motivations in the real world. Isn't that fascinating to any of you bible bashing zealots?
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Wes has become one of my favorite UA-cam intellectuals. His lectures are very engaging I have most of his lectures on my watch list. If anyone know of more folks who do this on UA-cam, please let me know!
3 arrows is a good channel
ua-cam.com/channels/FaYLR_1aryjfB7hLrKGRaQ.html
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
I Listened to this and it blew my mind, and changed what I thought I knew, I am currently looking up more info on Marx,
Same. Seems we've been led to believe something else about this man, instead of the thought he put into his work.
Boy, there sure a lot people who can't tell the difference between Marx's philosophy, and those who set up murderous regimes in its name. I don't remember ever reading Marx endorsing the purported movements that followed after his publication. His critique of capitalism mostly right, but thats because of his treaties was more on human nature rather than supporting a political ideology.
For all you other non-zombies who still have yet to make up your mind on the MERITS of Marx's work, just know that what the Maos, Stalins, Pinochets, Castros, and Kims etc, have little to nothing to do with Marx. Sure, they may quote Marx, but their primary impulse is to power and any political ideology would have gotten the job done.
Pendejo Marx didn't believe that there was a 'human nature'.
FamilyQuan That doesn't mean he didn't write about it. The nature of the industrial economy is a reflection of human.
Pendejo
All of Marx's mature writings on human nature are to argue that it doesn't exist - that what we 'are' is a product of socialisation. Most Marxists argue this - it is totally opposed, for instance, to the capitalist idea that selfishness or greed is our 'nature' - an absurd proposition not supported by historical fact. However, the great Marxist anthropologist Maurice Godelier did argue that there is a basic 'human nature' based on the nature of the brain - an idea drawn from the antrhopologist Claude Levi-Strauss.
So, where Marx talks about human nature, it's to dismiss the idea, and explain that human beings are socialised into being particular types of beings.
FamilyQuan Perhaps, but to the larger question of what happens in an industrialized/capitalist economy and its effects (alienation), you can't get around it, even if he dismissed the idea of human nature, which I'm not sure he does altogether.
Pendejo
Then you're not really sure what Marx argued. However, alienation rests on a basic idea of life becoming intolerable in certain conditions - so that could be seen as appealing to a principle of human 'nature' of sorts, so I understand what you're saying in that sense and agree with you.
Thanks, Wes. Always appreciate your lectures.
My 11 year old company (15 employees) was driven out of business by the banks (withdrew loans and working capital) because employees were well taken care of thereby company never made large profits.
People have a poor understanding of Marx's thought, Americans in particular seem to be reeeally traumatized (or brainwashed, some would say) by anything that relates to Marx; some even reduce their world understanding as a Communism vs Capitalism notion.
The truth is Marx was one of the finest thinkers of all time, one of the pillars of modern Social Sciences.
yakyakyak69 Your comment portraits exactly what I'm talking about.
yakyakyak69 Ohh man, there's so many things wrong in that comment, we could write books about it.
Do you really think something as complex as the notions of power, governments, political theories, History, "human nature", etc. can be refuted and/or debated based on a poor, child-like, and obviously biased understanding of what you personally think about them?
No man, things don't work that way. If you really want to comprehend a thing of what you're talking about, I suggest you educate yourself on Political Science, Sociology, History (the real study of History, not Wikipedia anecdotes) and maybe Philosophy.
Once you do that, you can start making informed and educated opinions, but on the meantime, keep them to yourself.
yakyakyak69 I’ve studied History as a discipline (I had to, for my career), I am no expert on the matter but I certainly have at least the basic understanding of how it works, and what it actually is.
Your comments, on the contrary, reflect from miles away your ignorance and prejudices about not only History, but all the disciplines I’ve talked you about.
Seriously man, you need to pick a book before start making assumptions and giving this kind of opinions.
This may come of a shock to you but, History is more than a linear collection of anecdotes, and way more than dates, places and people.
Here. You may start with this, but quickly move to the cited references: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History#Description
You may also want to read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science
***** Another enlightened American, aren't we?
Two things:
1) I am pointing out the relevance of a scientific school of thought that has been fundamental for Social Sciences: Marxism. But beware, I am not necessarily saying I agree with all its content (try to really understand the difference).
Given that, why would you think the private life of the man is relevant for his scientific work? How does his financial or his political situation makes his concepts, methodology and general ideas any less operable? Because, as you surely don't know, Marx's thought was so important, that practically every branch of the Social Sciences today operates under basic and fundamental notions he pioneered.
Also, and this may come of a shock to you, talking about Marxism does not equal talking about Karl Marx. The first is a school of thought, the second, is a single man; and so, while I can point out the achievements of the man's work (regardless of his private life), I may not agree with a whole school of thought.
Here, educate yourself on that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
2) Aside from my previous point, I am curious; where exactly are your references for this obviously misinformed accusation? which of his biographers are you taking in consideration, and under what historical sources?
A last comment: please, for humanity´s sake, read a book before making idiotic comments.
I hear that. For whatever reason, people can't stand to admit nor understand that Marx was more right about capitalism than he was wrong, and he was right in the most important ways (collusion, monopoly, alienation, squeezing the middle class etc). There's been academic and psychological research performed on the effects of wealth and the brain, and it nearly confirms what Marx and other have said about the pure pursuit of money to exclusion of everything else.
The account of Hegel’s philosophy here sounds like it came from a Sparks notes or Encyclopedia. Hegel never mentions “thesis, antithesis, synthesis”. This is an interpretation, which is more misleading then enlightening.
He isnt saying the middle class are bourgeoisie, he is saying that the its the middle class that can overthrow the higher classes, so keeping them happy with providing them their means enabling them to also exploit themselves will keep them happy.
I love professor Cecil lectures and have been watching them for many years now! One thing I came to realize though, economics and economical philosophy should not be taught when you don't really have economical background. It seems to me that there were more inaccuracies in this one video than in all other 50+ videos I've watched from this channel. Things like profit, causes of monopoly, and economical effect on things were wrongly discussed here.
For those that are interested, I really recommend watching Milton Friedman lectures on UA-cam to broaden your perspective and possibly change it. Cheers!
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
@@billtatum1708 haha, I don't know how much I believe the video you sent, but I really like this upcoming channel, at least the first video they posted. ua-cam.com/channels/0_VN4m_OkCJA50xnxU4T5w.html
And Thomas Sowell
It should be evident in this comment section that many people don‘t think, at best they use thinkers or a type of thought as a form of idolatry for their sense of identity.
So then they hate Marx because they believe Marx or Marxists are an attack on their sense of identity.
This is not thought it is perpetual adolescence with one’s critical faculties permanently suppressed.
It is totemistic identity and a primitive participation mystique. It is natural for a 14 year old, but the fact that it persists past 26 is bewildering.
There is an old saying, “Take what you need and leave the rest.”
The “rightists” here in the comments who claim Marx was wrong about everything, remind me of 1980’s feminists who claimed Freud was wrong about everything. Pure ideologues incapable of thought and only capable of a primitive totemistic identification and participation mystique.
Marx was wrong about everything. He's only promoted by well funded people because it promotes government power and brainwashed people think they're being rebellious while promoting more authoritarianism
@@ProlificThreadworm
Could you elaborate on what Marx was wrong about, and which aspects of Marx' writings actually promote an authoritarian future? You seem to be throwing around a lot of non-sensical conclusions without at least any hints at the premises.
I would thoroughly encourage anyone to watch the video of MARX by Thomas Sowell.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
@@billtatum1708 hi Bill that about sums this fella up...many thanks!!
I Concur
Knowing the character of the man and how he treated his family let’s you know all you need about his so-called “theories” and it’s not helpful that his adherents are murderous bastards worse than the capitalists he so despised
This lecturer deserves a Medal for this
do Albert Camus please
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
if only my professor was this awsome
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
American workers are paying 2017 prices with 1980s wages. No MBA required.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Thanks Dr. Cecil, we couldn't appear in your classes but We can learn from far away
Marx’ critique seems more appropriate for corporate capitalism and governments that are in bed with them, and not just in capitalism in itself.
Two points Cecil made that need to be expanded on:
1. If it’s the law that a CEO of a publicly traded company must maximize the profitability, then why not simply remove that law? What are the ramifications of this other than to ease up on the workers?
2. If unfettered capitalism leads invariably to monopoly, mainly due to collusion as he points out, then why not make regulations tougher on business collusion? Wouldn’t corporations be more apt to innovate to stay ahead of the profit margin of their competitors?
Corporate capitalism is capitalism. Capitalism is the state.
Read Marx. Not about him. Same with other philosophers. Difficult yes. But usually no more than the critics.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
The idea that "property is theft" within the scientific materialist paradigm is self contradictory.
so what happened with America and the Indians? if that's not theft then I am a dutchman
Sorry but that's far from science, its nonsense. Property is a FRAUD, an illusion. Democracy and capitalism are ponzi schemes. Government is fraudulent tool of big capitalists, etc. Its easy to understand, just think about 0.01% on the top of pyramidal scheme, then you realize that 99,99% actually have NOTHING compared to them, and yet slaves work HARD. Why? Because they think that by hard work will put them to the top 0,01% - WRONG. Slaves also take part in voting thinking that by subjugating their power and freedom to some imaginary all-mighty entity called "government" will help them - WRONG. Human farming at its best. We need to switch from own&control based ponzi society to the free mission based p2p society.
Lazar Red Hot Bits You missed my point. Within scientific materialism there is no "theft". If a raven takes the eggs of a sparrow, you don't call it "theft". You just acknowledge it as nature at work.
In reality, there are only claims. And those claims are only worth anything when backed by force of arms and will. If the sparrow's force of arms and will is weaker than the ravens, it is likely she will lose her eggs and, with it, her biological future. When man allows himself to be kidded into the idea that nature's eternal religion doesn't apply to him, he ends up with nothing. The greedy, selfish, conceited two-faced thugs who control Western civilization certainly never forgot.
My general assertion is that those who produce wealth should be the ones to consume it (that the producer must become predator in stamping out the plunderer), and that proprietorship for the world's resources should as far as possible be entrusted to those who can make the best historical claim to them, and who demonstrate themselves capable of responsible stewardship.
HerzWatIThink "property is theft" not a "scientific matieralist paradigm", it's a quote from Proudhon, an Anarchist, whom Marx sharply criticized. Proudhon also stated that "property is freedom" and "property is impossible". check wikipedia. When marxists argue that private property as an institution should be abolished and all property (i.e. the means of production, not private belongings) should be communally administered, then definitely not on such legalistic terms.
***** Interesting that you think he wrote only one good book, Das Kapital, when Das Kapital is actually three books, Das Kapital Band 1, Das Kapital Band 2 and Das Kapital Band 3. I don't see how his personal unfortunate fate has any bearing on his economic theories, in fact I would consider this argument to be an ad hominem fallacy. And by the way, do you realize that Marx's project was to abolish the state to give way to a form of free association as the production process and NOT to have a large, highly regulative state machinery? I'm not saying this is a viable future for communism, I haven't decided on that point, all I'm saying is Marx did not plan what you think he did. One thing seems clear to me: if we remain in an economy of capital (as in capitalism in the broadest sense, in the sense that the soviet union was a form of state capitalism) and we intend to survive without too many ecological catastrophes or riots and uprisings, the economy needs heavy regulation. I don't know if there is any way out of an economy of capital, (comrade Negri, for example doesn't think so), but this is what it entails.
Lols Andrew, judging by ur responses you have confirmed what Marx said all long.... what let me guess, your part of the ruling class? Seriously dude, have some respect, this lecturer has nailed this precisely...
Excellent, until around 56:00.
Our recent economic mess had gestated in anything but an unregulated free market. The political drive to encourage home ownership was incredibly stupid. The regulations and programs and incentives devised served to completely distort the market.
The government used a carrot-and-stick tactic with lenders, dangling CRA credits in front, threatening prosecution and penalties from behind.
***** Only the government has the power to regulate and deregulate. The "deregulation" we saw was anything but - it was reregulation, unregulation, overregulation, regulations on the regulations, selective enforcement of regulations, ad hoc creation of new regulations, etc.
This is a mess that distorts market signals.
If we had a truly unregulated free market, then we'd never have seen the likes of HUD, FHA, Fan/Fred, CRA, and countless other programs and bureaucracies.
The government need not be in the business of "encouraging home ownership," any more than it should be involved in encouraging car ownership.
*****
The banking system was not "deregulated." All supposed deregulation was more than offset by all manner of re-regulation, regulations on the regulations, new regulations, and regulations on the deregulation. A mess. The free market was absolutely not permitted to work.
*****
You could make a case for that, but the Indians were hardly the owners of the land. Their use of resources was based on subsistence, which is a profoundly inefficient use of those resources. They were also taking land from one another - their subsistence model dictated that when their tribes expanded, they necessarily came into contact and conflict with other tribes.
There was no Rule of Law, in fact hardly any law to speak of.
Man, claiming Adam Smith was strongly in favor of heavy regulation is dramatically misrepresenting his observations.
We tend to think that monarchist systems were not regulated, this is not true, they were regulated to the extent the monarch felt like doing what they wanted.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos...
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
I guess I will read Marx's work then. Great presentation
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
thanks for uploading this lecture
Fantastic work!
Good criticisms; Destructive "solution."
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
Excellent channel, wonderful. Please upload more lectures! 👍
The perception of a perfect government in the view of Democrats also makes the claim Hegel makes of the Prussian State, the American government is the final achievement humans can produce in the political world. Hegel rationalized the Prussian State in the same way. Rationalizations are relative rationalizations, relative to the moment they live, purely subjective.
Doing more work than what you are compensated for; is not the Marx’s theory of value and use value, value, concrete labor and abstract labor are the four elements that go into the formation of the concept of value at the level those economic categories developing through the history of work. The history of work, or the history of labor, is the subject-matter, and when people have no clue how things are made, why they are made, or what work in society looks like... in the history of work. Must not confuse surplus value and where it comes from with these categories. Where Surplus Value comes from is answered not in the first chapter. Use-value and value and the concrete and abstract labor contradiction composing value have moved into a new form, more complex, they reside in commodities and this contradiction is resolved with the introduction of money. There is no discussion about the nature of Capital or Capitalism at this point. Not even a definition. Not even a mention of Capital. The categories must originate from themselves and Capital is a category that does not emerge or come from use-value, value, concrete labor, abstract labor in their form as commodities and money. Workers in every century exchanged products as commodities and money for thousands of years and a Capitalist was never in the picture util the 16th century. Capitalism and free markets are not mutually dependent; we can have exchange without a capitalist and still have surplus value.
Not only do the categories have to emerge from themselves in the treatment but they must be accurate, a clear and exact picture of reality, of the subject-matter; presented always along the lines of deductive reasoning. Essentially he is dealing with aspects of reality when on the level of discussing the circulation of social matter in society. For instance it would be wrong to bring into the discussion of the elements that constitute value in operation through the circulation of commodities and money in society when the subject-matter is production. We need to see these elements in their transformation through production and here we begin to see how surplus value comes into being. “Nuff said; go read the book yourself.
Reagan old Cold War dog- died so long ago w/ his dyed black hair; Karl Marx is absolute legendary globally & eternally.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
Be a individualist debating wit the professor in my head
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
Very good, engaging. I think Marx was essentially right.
***** Marx would not have wanted to have been associated with 'Stalinism' or the brutality of the soviet state. Propaganda has since demonized the idea of socialism.
No, Marx was wrong. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalm 14:1, KJV).
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalm 14:1, KJV). Marx was evil, through and through.
David Lafleche
What is the "fool" supposed not to believe in?
What was "evil" about Marx, specifically?
Have you ever read any Marx?
Marx believed in anarchy, to compel non-willing people to participate. He was no better than the so-called "pope."
i think his remark on diamonds is actually outdated but beside that i love these lectures they're quite easy to follow despite the lack of any visual
wow... amazing summary!
If only private property being the most peaceful way known and proven to promote peace and cooperation, was a premise everybody agreed on, we be off to a good world for even the poorest people.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Talks about property is theft with no mention of Proudhon.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
"books by Wesley Cecil Ph.D."
Ah. Someone who thinks they can impress us with the letters after their name. The same someone who's evidently read a few introductions to Marx...and rather misunderstood them. But feels confident in their ability to lecture on the subject anyway.
Try not conflating the modern American notion of "Middle Class" with the 19th century notion of "Bourgeoisie".
no no no the middle class would simply be the petite bourgeoisie, after all they to are working class.
Abiasaf López In marxist terms, the middle class are the managerial class. They manage people below them, but don't decide on general policy.
The petit bourgeoisie are owners of small businesses. This includes sole traders, who are both manager and worker - so in that highly restricted sense, some of the petit bourgeoisie are also middle class.
*****
_" I am certain he's not interested in 'impressing' strangers on You Tube"_
You must be new here.
_"If you think can do better, do it,"_
Try reading the other comments before adding your own. You'll often find your challenge has already been accepted.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Your lectures are amazing. I learned a lot from them. Thank you.
18:22 A: In a union you can live where there’s “fresh air and sunlight.”
Long live you!
Best lecture on Marx I have ever seen.
Have you read The Class Matrix by Vivek Chibber? Would love to hear your thoughts on it.
Great lecture. Would you be able to share your handouts?
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 1:00:06
Too bad his definitions of the bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat are wrong. The bourgeoisie and capitalist class are used interchagebly by Marx and the lumpenproletariat literally means "the proletariat in rags" signifying members of the population in no position to sell their labour, for example the unemployed, the full time students and the severely handicapped.
Hi Dr. Cecil,
You stated Marx waz not a communist. Could you please elaborate on this or provide a link to it. Thank you.
Sandy lt I will respond. Marx did write the communist Manifesto.
What he advocated in it was the democratic worker ownership of the means of production. And also theorized that this would eventually (teleological) result in a stateless society.
What became known as communism in the 20th century was Leninism. And Lenin was inspired by Marx. But Lenin advocated for the centralized state ownership of the means of production, and the USSR was not democratic. So it was argued by many that it did not fit Marxist theory.
To gain a clue as to this controversy you can read Lenin’s essay called „Left Marxism an infantile disorder“. You can also look at writers like Rosa Luxemburg who overtly criticized Lenin. You can see in this several ideas that the Left in that era did not consider Lenin Marxist or left, and that Lenin identified as „right wing“ which at that time meant believing in the State. While the left Marxists at that time were anti-State.
It is difficult to translate these politics onto contemporary politics.
But this might get you closer to why he said it.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
@@matthewkopp2391 His Belief that forcefull overthrow would somehow naturally result in a utopian staetless society without driecting how (as that is literally just one paragraph in the whole manifesto without direction) is Niave at best and dengerously ignorant at worst.
@@vd6637 I agree, the communist manifesto was written in Gothic idealized language. His later work he took the position that it would be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. And the manifesto dies not invalidate the rest of his work. Read Max Weber who agreed with Marx’s observations but certainly did not agree with revolution.
@@matthewkopp2391 I figure a lot of the Idealism comes from Engles. Marx complained of that a bit. Marx was a serious researcher and bit more of a pragmatist . He called himself a Scientific Socialist after al (as did Engles)l . Which is accurate of Economics. Its a social science. Problem is many of his predictions didn't come true though his criticisms of the day were accurate. I wonder how how he would react to those that call themselves Marxist today. They seem more of the totalitarian Russian/Chinese model. Marx famously said "Well I guess I'm not Marxists then" is reaction to the beliefs of a French Group calling themselves as such. AS an American I am naturally very suspicious of a any belief that concentrates power in a large government. Which we are now anyway//// sigh........
I love videos about me!
Oh hi Marx
Karl Marx is dead...
@@carleigh2006 If Karl Marx is dead, then how did he leave this comment?
Futue te ipse Canis
is this a 100 level course
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
I cannot accept your claim that Marx had the labor theory of value correct since economics cannot be understood by treating labor as the only scarce quantity going into a good's price. Even if we ignore skill, time, place, scarcity, and other factors so that the LTV is approximately correct, the consequent argument that investment/interest is theft only holds any weight if you ignore time and uncertainty - money now is worth more than money later and profits aren't certain while wages are.
Also, summarizing the Chicago School of Economics as saying that Marx was right about everything except for one or two minor disagreements is highly misleading.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
The labour market is perfectly adequate to explain the value of labour in subjective theory
The Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis is not Hegel's, nor is it Hegelian Dialectics.
It baffles me the professor disseminating such base misconceptions given the high quality of his content in general...
Punctuation would help what you want to say
Karl Marx ,a great man delivered by this world..A true revolutionist..'UNIVERSAL ARROW',Kerala,India.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
This doesn't really explain land value. But very interesting concepts.
david3188col Clearly its value is derived from the labor theory. My land has value only because I personally made it out of my own labor. The subjective value that I put to that land has absolutely nothing to do with the value of land (or anything else).
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos...
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Easy to spot the Americans in the comments.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
It is all about what camp one is on or desires to be in. Socialism & Communism vs. Capitalism.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos...
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Get closer to the microphone.....don't need the bathroom echo effect ....
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
The Labor Theory of Value: The belief that a painting I create should have the same value as a Picasso if I happened to work on the painting for the same amount of time.
Daniel Turczan Daniel, that isn't what the labour theory of value proposes, any more than the theory of relativity proposes that you should go and see your gran more often. *Google is your friend.
Straw Man: an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponents position.
@@IAMELIPHAS I agree but ltov is rejected by everyone even though marx is a really popular guy
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
like the man said 'to each according to his needs from each according to his ability' no sentence describes how the world should be better than that, with the proviso that Bakunin said this in the late 1800 'Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality'
Human nature is evil and selfish. Under Socialism, people will always take more than they need, and give less than they're able. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (9th Commandment).
that's such nonsense, human nature is not just evil and selfish, its both wonderful generous and evil it can be both, so a good form of socialism works with good nature angd against bad to make a world more like the one Jesus preached it should be
Socialism never solves poverty, it only creates it. Ever since Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson began promoting Socialism, people have become too dependent on Government, and many refuse to work, even though they are able to do so. "By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground" (Genesis 3:19a, KJV).
ok we have to define terms you we were talking to about marx, have you read das capital ? marx is pretty insistent that you can't have a working system of reformed capitalism such as all presidents of both parties rorsevelt -carter practiced, on this point I you are with marx and I think there are shades of gray on this question, but your critique is not of socialism its of welfare in a capitalist system most Marxist thiorists call this welfare capitalism and those like ralf milliband (our next prim minister's (I hope ) dad ) clearly saw it like many of us on the left as a bad thing
This is why we're better off with a King, with laws that cannot be customized on a whim, as Obomunism is doing.
I'd like to say "hi". Hi, Im Canadian 🙂
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
why do people with the best criticisms always think of the worst fucking solutions.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Ferengi rules of acquisition
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Let it be each where he/she wants to be and fight to the death if necessary.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Open your speakers fully before starting the video.
Communist leaders, once shown the truth, no longer believe in communism. Mikhail Gorbachev, when he visited Western democracies, was stunned by what he saw. His memoirs revealed that his “previous belief in the superiority of socialism over the bourgeois system was shaken.” Boris Yeltsin, after having visited a supermarket in America, wondered aloud: “What have they done to our poor people.” His companion said that the experience destroyed whatever faith he had left in Communism.
Sam T Actually, it was Marx's theory helped improve democracy and market economy.
***** Democracy means majority rule or free elections, and a free market is just that - people freely exchanging goods with one another. How did Marx improve any of that?
Sam T
The essence of democracy is not about majority rule, it is about the minority opinion be respected and protected. Marx pointed out that a monopoly can make an economy inefficiently use resources, especially the most important resource-human resource, when producers do not pay workers fairly and a monopoly have power over price of products and production inputs. His theory provided working class and middle class the moral ground to have voice in the government and demand fair competition among businesses and fair pay for working class, also, it supported the establishment of basic human right that everyone on earth has the right to work. That's why the goal of all civilized developed countries' financial policies and monetary policies are towards full employment rate. Before Marx, there wasn't anti-trust law that prevent monopoly and defend fair competition, social welfare was very insufficient too. It is social welfare that makes a nation's labor force strong and competitive in the world market, not just capitalism. Capitalism means leadership, social welfare means cooperation. A successful entrepreneur must know how to lead and how to cooperate. Of course, excessive welfare may discourage entrepreneurs from taking initialtives. Everything needs a balance.
*****
Democracy is majority rule; or mob rule, which is why it is dangerous. In order for a minority to be protected, other structures (or a different system) must be in place.
The negative aspects of monopolies have been understood long before Marx. Moreover, it is the state that allows true monopolies to form, not a free market. Any profitable enterprise will naturally attract competitors who will compete for their customers. In order to create a monopoly the government has to pass laws favorable to one business that pushes competitors out.
The idea of full employment is economically wasteful. It is said the Soviet Union had full employment, but its economy was very inefficient and wasteful. You can pay people to dig ditches all day and fill them up at night, but produce nothing of value. Slavery is also a full employment system.
Antitrust law can help in some limited situations (mostly in the past), but when government grants special exemptions, which it always does as in the health insurance industry, among other unfair applications, it ends up abusing the law. This kind of privileged power inevitably institutionalizes inefficiency and discourages innovation. Antitrust enforcement is premised on the idea that the government has to keep competition alive. But this is false. The competitive process is what there is when government refrains from interfering in the market. When it meddles, it doesn’t protect competition or consumers, but protects special interests at the expense of everyone else.
Capitalism also means cooperation. People naturally cooperate because their best interests are served by mutually beneficial exchange. Social welfare, while initially having good intentions, has become a tool (and weapon) of politicians to gain power. As much as the idea of a “safety net” sounds good, the reality is that millions of people have been made comfortable in career unemployment. It is very easy for a safety net to become a hammock.
Sam T
Democracy is majority rule; or mob rule, which is why it is dangerous.
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
If the income inequality is not too serious, the middle class will be the majority, then where is the danger. A country that has a majority of poor means this minority rule repressed the mass and has a injustice and inefficient system.
In order for a minority to be protected, other structures (or a different system) must be in place.
==========
Yes, that's called checks and balance.
The negative aspects of monopolies have been understood long before Marx.
================
But no one suggested that working class should be united to fight for what they deserve.
Moreover, it is the state that allows true monopolies to form, not a free market.
==============
free market without anti-trust law will create monopoly still.
Any profitable enterprise will naturally attract competitors who will compete for their customers. In order to create a monopoly the government has to pass laws favorable to one business that pushes competitors out.
The idea of full employment is economically wasteful.
==========
That means you don't understand the balance of supply and demand. Go to take econ 101 again if you did not pass it.
It is said the Soviet Union had full employment, but its economy was very inefficient and wasteful.
============
Never heard they had a full employment, but their manpower were wasted for making weapon, not butter. Still, my class who from former USSR, she told me that she always had plenty of milk and meat to eat when she was young and their refrigerator always full of food although she hated the system that limited her freedom. She is 50 this year.
You can pay people to dig ditches all day and fill them up at night, but produce nothing of value.
==========
This is helpful during a recession, because money has to be injected into the market to circulate.
Slavery is also a full employment system.
=================
When you do not pay a slave fair price of his or her labor, efficiency is lost in the economy, because you will not have enough demand to grow business.
Antitrust law can help in some limited situations (mostly in the past), but when government grants special exemptions, which it always does as in the health insurance industry, among other unfair applications, it ends up abusing the law. This kind of privileged power inevitably institutionalizes inefficiency and discourages innovation. Antitrust enforcement is premised on the idea that the government has to keep competition alive. But this is false. The competitive process is what there is when government refrains from interfering in the market. When it meddles, it doesn’t protect competition or consumers, but protects special interests at the expense of everyone else.
==============
Then, it is not anti-trust law is not good, It's the citizens duty to exercise their social responsibility to make the legislature better and towards perfect. We should only try to make things better instead of do nothing.
Capitalism also means cooperation. People naturally cooperate because their best interests are served by mutually beneficial exchange.
=============
Capitalists do not necessarily be fair for their workers since greed is human nature. Otherwise, we don't need government in the world.
Social welfare, while initially having good intentions, has become a tool (and weapon) of politicians to gain power. As much as the idea of a “safety net” sounds good, the reality is that millions of people have been made comfortable in career unemployment. It is very easy for a safety net to become a hammock.
===============
would you live comfortably on welfare?
Whats the difference between a progressive and an idealist?
Ok. Marx may not have accomplished a life of hard work and labour compared to others, but he was a man way ahead of his time and his ideas are still vital. He saw something that only a very few people saw during his time, which still resonates today. He is not the killer of millions as some people accuse him of. Certain individuals took his ideology, twisted it for their own evil enterprises, and unfortunately Marx is blamed for that.
wrong
the evil was inherent in his thought
reality exposed it
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Great lecture :)
I am short on my Marx. Did he or did he not propose dictatorship of the proletariate and abolishing private ownership of the means of production?
Just asking…
David Jakab Hi David, Marx didn't invent the idea of the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but yes, he did argue that it would most likely be a necessary stage. Marx, pretty much precisely as many of his critics on this thread think, thought that any form of elite-controlled government was already a dictatorship, and that to transition to a classless society that ovethrew the old dictators there would likely be a period where the old regime would use violence to try and retain its power and interests. Remember that Marx never saw Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin etc. and so back in the 19th century 'dicatorship' carried its Roman sense of a period of emergency rule in order to overcome a crisis. The 'dictators' that Marx is referring to are the vast majority of people working together agains the old dictators, not a cabal of politicians.
Yes, Marx proposed not only abolishing private ownership of the means of production, but the concept of 'ownership' per se in this sense. This doesn't mean abolishing your right to 'possessions' (possession and ownership are not the same thing) and nor does it mean ceasing to produce a 'profit' - although 'profit' would in the ideal communist economy be a 'surplus' - it means an economic system where human labour is no longer a commodity to be bought and sold, and where production is geared towards producing what society needs and democratically wants - i.e. a shift of the entire point of production away from making some wealthier at the expense of others, and towards a communally managed production process.
FamilyQuan
LOL!
My professors of marxism/leninism in Moscow USSR 40 years ago gave me same ridiculous, confusing and illogical answer to this question.
***** Do you mean that that this is not a coherent explanation of Marx's thought, or that Marx's thought was not coherent?
FamilyQuan
Both!
*****
So you're saying that I didn't explain Marx's ideas correctly?
6510686 did. The person I was replying to in the first place.
Oh cool. A video about me.
Well made
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
Utopia. What exactly is an "utopia" and how is communism/socialism one? Please DO explain.
Utopia is a myth.. I'll let you figure out the rest
In science the personality of the scientist does not matter too much, however when the ideology is a product of intellect the personality of the ideologue does matter. I think Marxism is a strong projection of both the personality as well the way its creator lived his life: resentful, unkind, disloyal to everybody and everything, so no attachments nor prudence, no wisdom at all drawn either for sheer experience or keen observation of life to find in his writings despite his trademark witty criticism. A man of abstractions unable to solve real problems, to deal with concrete situations or concrete persons for that matter. Where other thinkers saw just people, he only saw concepts piled up on even more concepts. In short, a pedantic man unable to handle his life, his duties, his entourage. Nothing more natural to him than to wish as much prophesize the obliteration of a social order based on honoring obligations and responsibilities. About ten people attended his funeral. Remarkably for a man who took everything giving nothing he had a good friend. What follows from then on is history and by no means one of its best chapters.
Perhaps the economic and political model that we have seen developing in China during the last 20-30 years is indicative of how things will function. China is an example of how authoritarian government combined with an extremely dynamic and efficient capitalist economy can and does work. Perhaps this is a serious alternative to liberal democracy capitalism. Anyhow, we are certainly living in interesting times where some kind of radical change is on the horizon but none of know exactly in what form that change will come as.
Yes very true. I like your comment. Good perspective on China.
Do you want to live in a place like China?
I would recommend futher analysis on several topics you speak of. Specifically: 1.Monopolies 2. The Great Depression 3. Banking, credit expansion and inflation 4. 2008 housing crash..
Those topics, on it's surface, seem like the result of what Marx would equate to a failure of market capitalism. Upon further research, you will find that the root causes are a lack of actual market capitalism, not a lack of regulatory laws to control them. Monopolies are largely created outside free markets.
I suspect the fundamental issue here, is that he is utilizing arguments from the perspective of Marx, those arguments in my opinion are easily debunked on multiple levels, which is why you are seeing so many issues.
Remember, he is proposing Marx's ideas, it is up to us to analyze them.
Lost me when you tried to fit China"s current market strategy whilst beginning to unpack the Marxist analysis of capitalist economy.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Can someone tell me if the Marxist "bourgeoisie" only referred to the middling types who didn't have a stake in industry? Because I thought it referred to the rulers of industry and that "petit bourgeoise" referred to the clerks, accountants etc.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos...
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
The level of ignorance and irrationality on this particular comments section is particularly high.
What you are witnessing is what happens when people deviate from philosophy and enter into politics.
@@northernmetalworker I’m pretty sure most people aren’t great at philosophy either lolol (for lack of experience and a certain amount of laziness, not ‘stupidity’ or something like that)
fantastic lecture
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos...
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
God bless Karl Marx. Most genius man to ever live.
Bademoxy...I'll abide by anything I want and stay. WTF are you? Sooooo eat it.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos.
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
What is your definition of Marxist?
Castleraw? Fowerbach? How ignorant.
The failure of the US is not capitalism as we have adopted the Ten planks of the Communist manifesto in whole or majority it is the failure of Socialist /Communist principals.
First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.)
Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.)
Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transferring property after death and gift before death.)
Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.)
Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)
Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.)
Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.)
Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.)
Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.")
Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos...
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
nice
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Man, that economics analogy around 20:00 not sure what I think about that.
The economic analogy is a little over simplified. If you do a bit of research on stock market investment, there's a lot more questions that would arise from the analogy.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos:
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2l
I find it so strange, to not see value in the natural resources it took to make something, nor the efforts it took to distribute it to customers, as if the person making it is the only thing that matters, so freaking weird. Maybe I'm not comprehending. 21:05 I would say he only lost $50,000, that there was really only $150,000 available in profits, for both companies to exist equally. That's what he wants, right? I just don't follow. If he only wants 1 monopoly, then there was $300,000 available in profits, not $200,000.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
A poor man has alot to hate about capitilism, especially if it's a man that wasted his money to the point where he pawns his own pair of pants... The analogy is not to far of a stretch.
Marx defines class by relation to production, not to consumption. If you sell your labour power in order to survive, then you are working class. The so called "middle class bulge" in developed countries is using a different definition of class. This is relating class to consumption and/or income not production. The Proletariat is larger now than it has ever been. Firstly, you need to think internationally, look at china and India and the huge factories there. But secondly and most importantly, the proletariat is not only manual labourers. White-collar and blue-collar employees are working class. The capitalist class I still an extremely small class. Owning a home is not the same as controlling the means of production. A home is no longer a productive object (as it was before industrialisation). Most capitalists now are "money capitalists" in the sense that they own shares rather than actually owning the factories. But the percentage of people that own most of the means of production is an extremely small percentage. The dialectical struggle between the proletariat and capitalists is still happening today. All the extra rights and wages we have now (compared to Marx's time) are concessions given by the capitalists in order to hold off revolutionary uprisings.
You look at this too much of who owns what, instead of who earns what income. the average income in America is $53,000 annually, according to the 2010 census, which is probably higher by now due to improved economy. Thats enough cash to buy a home in a lot of rural states, and live a great life if you don't live in a high cost of living area.
Also, who is to say someone who is working class cant become the capitalist class? All you have to do is work really hard in school, get accepted to a top university, and try to get recruited at an investment bank on wall street. If you can't beat them, join them!
***** Hi, if you want to learn more about the average income in america, please read the US census publication: www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-249.pdf
On page 5, in figure 1, you will see a graph of the median incomes in all races and each individual race. The median income means if you took every single person's income and line them up from greatest to least, the 50 percentile is $52,929.
The buying power of a dollar cannot be measured nationally, but only locally. For example, a $55,000 annual income could buy a decent house, and car for a family of three to four members in places like Texas or Alabama while in San Francisco a $55,000 annual income would only give you a one bedroom apartment.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos...
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
Never in the history of mankind has humans lived so comfortably, yes, there is still poverty out there. There ALWAYS will be, but never have so many had so much.
Capitalism has its flaws but I'd rather be poor with all the benefits of capitalism than live in a world without it
Interesting lecture. It is very clear that Marx, however, did not understand the significance of the price and wage system and how it facilitates voluntary transaction, inventory, and economic harmonies. There is also this ongoing perpetual myth that the American Indians did not share the concept of private property which is historically false. Tribes waged war over territorial disputes. They weren't the peace loving hippies everyone thinks they were.
Ahh yes the Myth of the Peaceful savage.
ok the lecturer is not a complete idiot though he errs
He makes philosophy and study of philosophy interesting for many. A soft introduction for poor college students, academics. Listen how he closes in on it. The hippies (Woodstock Era) tried communes, an ideal utopia. Early America tried and failed communism..FAILED. Got to go back and make a living, wasted enough time.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos...
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2
what Adam smith really said" People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meeting, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. He goes on for about 3 paragraphs talking about what regulations he is talking about and then reaches the conclusion that customers keep the industry in line, not regulation of the state. Quote from Wealth of Nations page 177 to 178 book one chapter part 2 titled Inequalities occasioned by the Policy of Europe. Adam Smith is argue against government regulation in this quote, which should be obvious from the title of Policy of Europe as in the government policies of Europe., That means the Professor is either misinformed or a liar. Also he forgot to mention that value is subjective, not base on labor, which throws Marx whole theory out the window.
Karl Marx Life in Detailed Photos..
ua-cam.com/video/H8kDosQL9UY/v-deo.html&lc=Ugze8flkRATwcD2PgJF4AaABAg.9Rc0vgE5TYq9SzI786RQ2