Spellings of some of those mentioned (for anyone interested, as closed captioning doesn't help): Etienne Cabet (1788-1856) Etienne-Gabriel Morelly (1717-1778) Gracchus Babeuf (1760-1797) Pierre [not 'Paul,' as misstated by the speaker at about 19:05] Leroux (1797-1871) Louis Auguste Blanqui [who is not to be confused with Louis Blanc] (1805-1881) Wilhelm Weitling (1808-1871)
@@softlycrumblingcastle1820So according to you all the time Marx spent thoroughly investigaiting his facts so as to reach a Socially Scientific conclusión .... That's not "WORKING" at all according to silly you ?... Really ? Are you sure of that ? hahahahaha Oh Dear me....Some Mothers do have them....!! 😮😅😊😂😢
(2:00) To be clear, Frederick William IV didn't become King of Prussia until 1840. While that would have been during Marx's time studying at the University of Berlin, the Prussian monarch up until that point in his life was Frederick William III (whose reign had begun back during the wars of the French Revolution).
(24:19) So for Saint-Simon, the 'working class' basically corresponded to what had been called the 'Third Estate' under the *ancien regime* , in which all the 'commoners' -- i.e., anyone who wasn't part of the nobility or clergy, i.e., not only workers and peasants, but also bourgeois business owners big and small -- were grouped together.
I grew up in a communist regime and brings up things that I never knew. As a "theory" looks good. However, it cannot be put in practice without bringing tiranny, horror and misery. That from the sociological point of view. From the economic point of view it was wrong from birth and now, altogether it is a joke. But as history is interesting of you ignore the speaker;s recommandattions.
Marx & Engels said minimal about their desired society, to let workers on their own to decide. The self styled (pre) communist govs we’re only 1 or few of many varieties. Marx & Engels supported, among others, Commune of Paris in 1871 it’s wide coalition of revolutionary left parties, non party groups, individuals. They organized modern worlds most democratic society. Capitalists denounce what they call govs with too little democracy BUT at same time, denounce Commune style socities (Germany, Utaly, Ireland 1 city, Russia 1918, Soanish Republic part of time), in 1936 39, France 1968, Portugal 1874, etc.) There, TOO MUCH democracy, which they call chaos. Also, your description of failed domestic policy sounds like capitalist paleo or neo colonies in 3rd World/Global South, full of local capitalist clients or even puppets of Western govs & capitalist corporations. 1 example Some say that E German border guards killed a certain no. of escapees, but 2 times in US backed war vs. El Salvador in 1989s, US backed gov massacred 3,000 at Lempa River- more than all E German casualties. Also, self styled communist faction helped 3rd World govs & armed movements to oust Western colonial empires.Western capitalists in US & W Europe we’re themselves the colonialists!
Where did u grow up and when? Communism has uplifted millions from poverty, allowed the east to industrialize in decades to a degree that took western capitalists hundreds of years, and it defeated the nazis. Not to mention the innovations in technology and medical science, including a lung cancer vaccine. They did it all without slavery and colonization, unlike the capitalism. It’s not just a theory, it’s a science that has produced undeniable, tangible results.
THE WORST TYRANNY OF ALL THAT AFFECTS HUMAN KIND OF OLD....IS THE EXPLOITATION OF HUMANS BY OTHER HUMANS FOR THEIR SOLE BENEFIT..... STATE COMMUNISM PUT AN END TO THAT UTTERLY DISGUSTING SHAME.... WETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT....? i.g..A WOrker may earn WHATEVER let say 10k£ a month by his Capitalist employer....But that's only a fraction of what that WOrker earned for his Capitalist Sucker.....for the Suckers benefit.... That's what State COMMUNISM PUT AN END TO... THE WAGE EARNING SLAVE.... Who thinks IS free But IS constantly PIMPPED OF HIS SWET AND EFFORT.... THE END OF HUMAN EXPLOITATION....by other humans...!! That's not good ENOUGH for the likes of silly you...innit ? hahahahaha Oh Dear me.... Greetings from Spain.... ❤😮😊❤
i think you did explain pretty well the essence of marxism, I never ever heard such a good explanation, congratulation. your intervention about Marx and communism gives me hope for the future, especially now when reactionnary ideas are flourishing. CONGRATULATION. AMITIES. VIVE L'INTERNATIONALISME PROLETARIEN BRAVO CAMARADE. Daniel a french communist
What is it like being a dumb slave who is owned by marxist slave masters ? Do you ever have an original thought of your own, or are you just yet another cyborg reciting hackned cliches as you have been ordered to ?
@@lochnessmunster1189 None existed. That the Soviet nations were "communist" was the line constantly repeated by the Bourgeois media. It's not Fake News when it only disagrees with your opinions.
@@karlthemarxist6806 The Bourgeois media? I have debated endless Leftists on UA-cam who refer to these countries as Communist. And they seem to think life was great. If, in your opinion, no Communist country has ever existed, why have the attempts always failed?
At some point, the speaker says something about reducing the size of government as a hopeful measure to accomplish something for people in general. I hope he also knows this is utopian - in the sense he seemed to be using that word (meaning unrealistic). Someone will always try to take over when the government of the people is too weak. It sounds like American Republicans of our day or American libertarianism… just more opportunity for the richest to get their way. By American, I’m referencing my observations living in the US. Apparently the early socialists or communists were naive, understandably. After 23 minutes, the speaker is saying the workers advocate for their concerns and the more educated or elite or wealthy, with means of superimposing their terminology or ideas upon the situation, join in. Again, in the US (and I would think anywhere where there is a class swimming in means) the billionaire circles (might’ve been millionaires back then) took the wording of a “right to work” to undermine workers who are less well off; for example. Sure, the elites will say, you have a right to work yourself into the ground for me or “fer’merika.” They have time on their hands to mess with the understandings of the public and tell everyone that the business owners, especially the “most successful’ ones, are the most patriotic and would do what is best.
A good video, it's important to remember that as valuable as his works are they were an ongoing process over his entire life and that it took time for him to fully come into his own. Kind of how we need to keep pushing communism, it sucks that it takes time but that time is crucial it's far more important that it be done right and effectively than to come in half worked.
(46:01-46:12) Info on the George Sand work which was the source of the 'combat or death' quote used by Marx at the end of 'The Poverty of Philosophy' isn't that easy to find. But apparently it's from a novel called 'Jean Ziska' (about the Czech historical figure Jan Zizka), first published in 1843.
Boy this is an extremely sanitized rose colored glasses view of his biography. If he hasn't mentioned British Intelligence agent Guiseppi Mazzini and his Young Europe movements, you've largely ignored a huge portion of what was shaping the mid 19th century since Marx's participation in the Young Germany version is what forced him to relocate.
In present times the yoke of the masses is the lack of high grade state education. In Britain the old school tie still influences the ability of a person to obtain a promotion in certain employment. It is elitist control of the education system that ensures this remains and provides assurances to the establishment that the status quo will continue into the future.
Really, that’s it, universal public education, how is it going? The first and essential aspect of Marxist Theory is the establishment of universal public education (which did not exist when Marx wrote). It is so fundamental, an argument could be made that all theory beyond it was simply speculation. The state or status of public education is everything. One reads and hears that only capitalist economics are being taught in schools now. Meanwhile we are only about 40 to 60 years away from a global downturn in population (less people, more for everyone, environmental renewal) and yet a financed future based on eternal growth can’t deal with this coming reality and people are being taught to view it as a threat. Ridiculous.
@@wailinburnin virtually everything Marx wrote was speculation. The man was FOS. He famously quarreled with the workers and their leaders. He claimed to know what it was like to be a working man, and yet he never hit a lick of work in his life. He sponged off of his family and friends, especially Frederich Engels. They were both spoiled bourgeoise adolescents.
Let's say that you run a business which is closely competing with a lot of others. You either have the option of promoting an excellent employee, or one who have the old-school ties, but isn't as good. Which would be the better business decision?
You forgot to tell them that Karl did not have one single job in his life. He used to write articles in a magazine whenever his landlord will ask him for the rent and did not have any money to pay his family rent. His wife was the same. Both had rich parents and were asking their parents for monetary support all the time. In fact, Karl wrote to his mother all the time to get his share of his inheritance before she, even, dies. How disgraceful he was to ask his old mother for money support while he was young but lazy-bum. When he told his mom that he's writing a book abt. Capital. She answered him that you should produce capital before you write abt. it. He had no respect for his daughters in such three of his daughters died young mostly due to his and wife selfishness. He was having sex with his house-maid and had a boy from her. Then, he convinced Frederick Engel to tell Karl;s wife that the boy is his son and not karl's. So much feminist that they left her as a house-maid (with no pay - at all- just for food/shelter until she died). Frederick Engel was such a feminist that he was a womanizer jumping from one woman to another. Karl died before completing his book and Frederick had to finish it for him after more than one year from Krl's death. Communism is such a TERRIBLE CONCEPT in such all counties that tried to apply it on their own economy, MISERABLY, FAILED. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS COMMUNIST UTOPIA. (it is a dream that will never come through)
35:14 is the only place I see Trotskyism specifically entering into this presentation. He '[doesn't] have time to get into it,' but that surely seems to be the Soviet Union he is alluding to with the warning about what happens when worker revolutions are confined to countries where the material forces have not been sufficiently developed. Other than that, I don't hear anything from him here that Marxists more generally would take issue with.
At 40:10, he first says that Proudhon was considered 'an expert on political economy' in France, but moments later says that he was considered a 'bad economist' in France. Any explanation for that contradiction, other than that the speaker misstated one of those?
Long story short, he saw, much like Prodhoun before him, that Socialism is when the government does stuff, and if it could do a real lot of stuff, it would be Communism.
"During my period of poor health I had gotten to know Hegel from beginning to end, including most of his students." www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1837-pre/letters/37_11_10.htm
Karl Marl vision for communism was that with Will spring forth from a disillusionment from late stage capitalism. That being the case he absolutely believed Russia to be a backward state not fit for the grassroots communism, as it wasn’t but for sure the USSR and Joseph Stalin was the worst thing to ever happened to communism it gave it a bad name, I mean even if it’s a bad ideology the Soviet Union did not do it any favors . And it’s almost the perfect mirror image that the media has stunted our economic systems, as capitalism and the economy should be ever evolving and challenged, but we are stunted in our economic beliefs as it is a social science ever conforming to the problems and market situations of the day, instead we view it as a fixed position like some market physics and it and it’s propaganda will be the death of us, as it only perpetuates deeper and deeper inequalities.
Please, take an advice from an old tovarishch: - Gather with other revolutionary communist parties if possible and make a program with steps to achieve each goal. - Don't rely on each comrade's individual learning from the Marxist teachings. It will lead nowhere. Even in the Mickey Mouse country where I live, there are several communist parties. In my childhood and youth there were many parties of Marxists, Leninists, Trotskist, Stalinists - some also with representatives in parliament.Their ideological differences, which would seem irrelevant today, destroyed all possibilities for uniting the forces -which were strong at the time - and eventually destroyed each of them, leaving the proletariat no voting options.That has been the case till now. With an inappropriate, but illustrative example: The movement of Christianity was totally hapless until its teachings were canonized. I don't advocate for ideological pressure, but for clarity and thereby strategy. If revolution and communism is up to each comrade in each cell around the would to interpret, this important movement won't succeed; and it could, the time is ripe.
The only problem is that there are no other revolutionary communist parties. Here in denmark, our "communist" party was never communist, because it was stalinist. Since the fall of the USSR, these parties have either gone wholly into reformism or sectarianism. If these parties accept a correct marxist position, we would be open to dialogue, to do anything else would be sectarian. The parties of yesterday did have very relevant ideological differences, it would be naive to imagine a trotskyist and a stalinist party collaborating, since they are sworn enemies of each other, for very clear reasons. It would be a huge mistake to make theoretical compromises with the stalinist parties, because that would be the exact opposite of theoretical clarity.
Hopefully youth have realized that disagreement should not divide as the capitalist depends upon that strategy to defeat unity because women watch men's egos prevent unity of purpose that hasn't changed in 4,000 years.
Marx didn't become a communist, he gradually taught himself of Hegel's phenomenology of CAPITAL and then of class struggle. The seeds of Marxism can be found in Hegel. Communism is what Hegel taught Marx of the phenomenology of evolution of humanity.
Good talk about the history, but I'd disagree with the analysis. Marx's early commitment to free speech is a communist position, which he held all his life. There's no cause to dismiss it as an example of youthful liberalism. By contrast, the Manifesto, with its many liberal proposals, was a mistep. As Marx and Engels later acknowledged, its proposals for nationalisation etc. were quickly outdated and the text was repudiated by the mature Marx.
Communists fight for the most advanced democratic rights, I don’t think Josh was dismissing it, but the point is it’s not a communist demand on its own.
Marx agreed with many liberal positions BUT he saw flaws in liberal idealism, such liberty, fraternity, equality, etc. what do the words actually mean? Marx addresses the limits of these ideas within historical material contexts. But the best example to give is Marx’s argument against private property is in partial agreement with Locke’s defense for private property. Namely if private property is a means that a laborer can secure the fruits of their labor (which Locke wrote) and laborer has no access to his own private property especially under the circumstances of monopoly and industrialism. Then the main argument for private property is erroneous, it is not the means for the majority of laborers to secure the value of their labor. He then makes a distinction between private property (means of production) and personal property (such as a house). in order for liberalism to fullfill its promise of securing labor value for the workers the work place should be mutually owned. So many of the elements of liberalism are incorporated into Marx’s ideas but with a material analysis rather than a mere idealist concept. Equality is another big issue Marx tackled with Engels, coming to the conclusion “Each according to their ability, each according to their need.” Absolute equality was impossible and absurd. Work is rewarded by ability, but those not able, the elderly and disabled, still have need. This is a more coherent idea than mere “equality”.
@@saschabenjaminmusic7472 That's fair enough, actually. But to suggest that the CM is an expression of the mature Marx's communism is problematic. The measures listed at the end of section 2 are bourgeois-democratic. That made sense in 1848, but even by the end of Marx's life, they were outdated. The trouble with the Socialist Appeal perspective, in my view, is that they don't see that Marx and Engels' early prescriptions (e.g. nationalisation) cannot represent the aims of communists now.
Thanks. Was this friend in a hurry? Those who are trying to create an international must always keep in mind that they are not addressing only English speakers.
A typical scene from the left: the guy sitting next to the speaker is constantly nodding his head in approval of what the other person says. He is too busy making it clear that NOTHING the other says is new to him! He's a know-it-all and wants to make sure the audience knows that...
It is indeed powerful, but Hegel turned it into an addictive and confused Hermetic mess. Marx then applied it where Hegel never intended it to be - in the real world rather than philosophical discourse, which means that you don't just get to rip up your own philosophical ideas, you get to rip up society and reality. With all the catastrophe that follows, and no means to systematically mend all the things you've broken as a result. Which is one reason why Marxism, not to mention its derivatives, fails every time.
I wanted to watch, I will have to just listen due to the distracting, irritating tool in the background constantly nodding his head. And why is Josh filmed from the side?
You should always listen unless something is visual for the lecture. You became distracted and you should have adapted immediately to actually listen to the words.
@@kp6215 I “should” have adapted immediately? That is a value judgment. Here’s another one. You should not tell me how to watch or listen to videos. Have you heard of neurodiversity, autism or inattentive type ADHD? Some people adapt “immediately” more easily than others. Your arrogance is offensive to me and your advice is patronising.
'Great expose w/thumbs up! However, several critical comments, please: * Expressing a fundamental Human Nature as a behavioral/belief template is only 'ideologucal' to those who imagine humans to be Tabula Rasa at birth. * Otherwise, the Kantian account that most al of us are born with empathy is as "antural" as not. * To this Kantian end, yes, we're all born withthe innate, unexpressed idea "To each...from each"...ergo born communist. * Therefore, being born into a capitalist Society means unlearning fundamental truths. * Conversely, rediscovering communism is indicated in the practical ethical activity of working communist precepts out in the real world * Ergo, "Marxiism". * In this manner, as well, we can refer back to the Kantian "Crooked Timber" notion that a greedy. evil side exists along with the ethical Good. * said capacity is the point of departure of the Frankfurt School under the rubric of Freud; greed corresponds to humanity's evil side. * That's why Lukas' History & "Class Consciousness persistantly refers cabck to a Kant that marxo=paranoids label as 'idealist".
@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 Value is subjective but capital is not. What different people value personally is not the same as something that has utility inherent. You may not personally value a truss but everyone values the utility of a truss.
Spellings of some of those mentioned (for anyone interested, as closed captioning doesn't help):
Etienne Cabet (1788-1856)
Etienne-Gabriel Morelly (1717-1778)
Gracchus Babeuf (1760-1797)
Pierre [not 'Paul,' as misstated by the speaker at about 19:05] Leroux (1797-1871)
Louis Auguste Blanqui [who is not to be confused with Louis Blanc] (1805-1881)
Wilhelm Weitling (1808-1871)
Josh needs a forumn where he can talk about this in detail. Dude is a natural!
Agreed more lectures that everyone can learn from each other.
Like Marx was a natural worker. He did not work a day in his life, let his son neglected and died poor.
This is a good forum, isn’t it?
@@softlycrumblingcastle1820So according to you all the time Marx spent thoroughly investigaiting his facts so as to reach a Socially Scientific conclusión ....
That's not "WORKING" at all according to silly you ?...
Really ?
Are you sure of that ?
hahahahaha
Oh Dear me....Some Mothers do have them....!!
😮😅😊😂😢
Excellent talk. I really enjoyed and learned from it.
What a wonderful class on marxism! Congrats, comrades!
Oh for ...sake. Marx was a German economist who, using data, predicted where a capitalist society would end up. Right where we are now.
What did Marx predict, exactly?
@@lochnessmunster1189 uSiNg DaTa, too!
@@stavroskarageorgis4804 But he wasn't correct. There is no "surplus value" for example.
@@lochnessmunster1189 An oligarchy government where a select few corporations rule the country. But why wouldn't you read Das Kapital for yourself ?
@@merrick2752 I did read Das Kapital. Please can you tell me which country you're referring to, and which 'select few' corporations 'rule' it.
(2:00) To be clear, Frederick William IV didn't become King of Prussia until 1840. While that would have been during Marx's time studying at the University of Berlin, the Prussian monarch up until that point in his life was Frederick William III (whose reign had begun back during the wars of the French Revolution).
This was very good
Tremendously well explained Political Conference..Congratulations.!!
Greetings from Spain..
❤😮😊❤
Workers of the world Unite
From Pakistan section of imt
Solidarity from Toronto - our branch studied Pakistan India revolution recently; so many lessons to learn from the struggle!
I wish you well because your comrades must remove the power of the military that steals from the workers of Pakistan.
(24:19) So for Saint-Simon, the 'working class' basically corresponded to what had been called the 'Third Estate' under the *ancien regime* , in which all the 'commoners' -- i.e., anyone who wasn't part of the nobility or clergy, i.e., not only workers and peasants, but also bourgeois business owners big and small -- were grouped together.
Revolutionary greetings from Denmark ✊
Tak fordi du kom…
-munist.
#rødfront🚩
How about monarchy in Denmark? Are u fighting against quine there?
Jambo Ndugu!
Thank you for the historical observation of that figure- Karl Marx🚩
I grew up in a communist regime and brings up things that I never knew. As a "theory" looks good. However, it cannot be put in practice without bringing tiranny, horror and misery. That from the sociological point of view. From the economic point of view it was wrong from birth and now, altogether it is a joke. But as history is interesting of you ignore the speaker;s recommandattions.
Marx & Engels said minimal about their desired society, to let workers on their own to decide. The self styled (pre) communist govs
we’re only 1 or few of many varieties. Marx & Engels supported, among others,
Commune of Paris in 1871
it’s wide coalition of revolutionary left parties, non party groups, individuals. They organized modern worlds most democratic society.
Capitalists denounce what they call govs with too little democracy
BUT at same time, denounce Commune style socities
(Germany, Utaly, Ireland 1 city, Russia 1918, Soanish Republic part of time), in 1936 39, France 1968, Portugal 1874, etc.) There, TOO MUCH democracy, which they call chaos.
Also, your description of failed domestic policy sounds like
capitalist paleo or neo colonies
in 3rd World/Global South, full of
local capitalist clients or even puppets of Western govs &
capitalist corporations. 1 example
Some say that E German border guards killed a certain no. of escapees, but 2 times in US backed war vs. El Salvador in
1989s, US backed gov massacred 3,000 at Lempa River- more than all E German casualties.
Also, self styled communist faction helped 3rd World govs & armed movements to oust Western colonial empires.Western capitalists in US & W Europe
we’re themselves the colonialists!
With the people who have lived through the applied realities of Communism I always appreciate your voice...keep talking!
Where did u grow up and when? Communism has uplifted millions from poverty, allowed the east to industrialize in decades to a degree that took western capitalists hundreds of years, and it defeated the nazis. Not to mention the innovations in technology and medical science, including a lung cancer vaccine. They did it all without slavery and colonization, unlike the capitalism. It’s not just a theory, it’s a science that has produced undeniable, tangible results.
Which system are you vindicating?
THE WORST TYRANNY OF ALL THAT AFFECTS HUMAN KIND OF OLD....IS THE EXPLOITATION OF HUMANS BY OTHER HUMANS FOR THEIR SOLE BENEFIT.....
STATE COMMUNISM PUT AN END TO THAT UTTERLY DISGUSTING SHAME....
WETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT....?
i.g..A WOrker may earn WHATEVER let say 10k£ a month by his Capitalist employer....But that's only a fraction of what that WOrker earned for his Capitalist Sucker.....for the Suckers benefit....
That's what State COMMUNISM PUT AN END TO...
THE WAGE EARNING SLAVE....
Who thinks IS free But IS constantly PIMPPED OF HIS SWET AND EFFORT....
THE END OF HUMAN EXPLOITATION....by other humans...!!
That's not good ENOUGH for the likes of silly you...innit ?
hahahahaha
Oh Dear me....
Greetings from Spain....
❤😮😊❤
Before Berlin, Hegel was at Jena. Interesting that it's from the University of Jena that Marx received his Doctorate.
That's correct, and Jena was a diploma mill at that time.
@@Beez-k7v It was not.
Vorwärts zur Internationale!
Vorwärts immer, rückwärts nimmer!
Here when 11k views and 23.5k subs
Absolutely incredible speech. You truly are a natural. I'm inspired...
Great presentation. Bravo comrade.
“Not the Marx we know. Still very Hegelian.”
What?
Well done 👍
fantastic lecture/talk! thank you.
i think you did explain pretty well the essence of marxism, I never ever heard such a good explanation, congratulation. your intervention about Marx and communism gives me hope for the future, especially now when reactionnary ideas are flourishing. CONGRATULATION.
AMITIES. VIVE L'INTERNATIONALISME PROLETARIEN BRAVO CAMARADE. Daniel a french communist
What is it like being a dumb slave who is owned by marxist slave masters ? Do you ever have an original thought of your own, or are you just yet another cyborg reciting hackned cliches as you have been ordered to ?
Are you ashamed of your name that you speak rudely to your fellow human.
Which Communist country would you like to emulate?
@@lochnessmunster1189 None existed. That the Soviet nations were "communist" was the line constantly repeated by the Bourgeois media. It's not Fake News when it only disagrees with your opinions.
@@karlthemarxist6806 The Bourgeois media? I have debated endless Leftists on UA-cam who refer to these countries as Communist. And they seem to think life was great.
If, in your opinion, no Communist country has ever existed, why have the attempts always failed?
He never became a communist communist idealism was already there it just had to be realised.
Brilliantly informative talk ! 💯 ☘️ 😉
good work
I have studied both Karl and Groucho .
At some point, the speaker says something about reducing the size of government as a hopeful measure to accomplish something for people in general. I hope he also knows this is utopian - in the sense he seemed to be using that word (meaning unrealistic). Someone will always try to take over when the government of the people is too weak. It sounds like American Republicans of our day or American libertarianism… just more opportunity for the richest to get their way. By American, I’m referencing my observations living in the US. Apparently the early socialists or communists were naive, understandably. After 23 minutes, the speaker is saying the workers advocate for their concerns and the more educated or elite or wealthy, with means of superimposing their terminology or ideas upon the situation, join in. Again, in the US (and I would think anywhere where there is a class swimming in means) the billionaire circles (might’ve been millionaires back then) took the wording of a “right to work” to undermine workers who are less well off; for example. Sure, the elites will say, you have a right to work yourself into the ground for me or “fer’merika.” They have time on their hands to mess with the understandings of the public and tell everyone that the business owners, especially the “most successful’ ones, are the most patriotic and would do what is best.
I suggest taking the time to view some of the lectures on democracy by Paul Cockshott. or some of his essays.
Well done
Free helicopter rides and sky diving.
الحدود تراب و النضال واحد
Nice - Marx, the origin story!
A good video, it's important to remember that as valuable as his works are they were an ongoing process over his entire life and that it took time for him to fully come into his own. Kind of how we need to keep pushing communism, it sucks that it takes time but that time is crucial it's far more important that it be done right and effectively than to come in half worked.
Syphilictic mental degeneration.
The Z in Zeitung is pronounced almost as "ch". The "z" sound is invariably rendered via an 's' (between vowels). Diese, wesen, etc..
The Z in Zeitung is pronounced precisely like a sharp “ts” as in “its eye”
@@derDooFi Sharp "ts" it is. Touché!
Did anyone of these folks actually read Das Capital? No. Marx is a deep thinker. These folks, meh.
Jesus Christ was a Reflection of Self.. MAN
Yes this is true that many cannot see.
Gnosticism is a cult
thanks. very good
(46:01-46:12) Info on the George Sand work which was the source of the 'combat or death' quote used by Marx at the end of 'The Poverty of Philosophy' isn't that easy to find. But apparently it's from a novel called 'Jean Ziska' (about the Czech historical figure Jan Zizka), first published in 1843.
Boy this is an extremely sanitized rose colored glasses view of his biography. If he hasn't mentioned British Intelligence agent Guiseppi Mazzini and his Young Europe movements, you've largely ignored a huge portion of what was shaping the mid 19th century since Marx's participation in the Young Germany version is what forced him to relocate.
In present times the yoke of the masses is the lack of high grade state education.
In Britain the old school tie still influences the ability of a person to obtain a promotion in certain employment.
It is elitist control of the education system that ensures this remains and provides assurances to the establishment that the status quo will continue into the future.
Really, that’s it, universal public education, how is it going? The first and essential aspect of Marxist Theory is the establishment of universal public education (which did not exist when Marx wrote). It is so fundamental, an argument could be made that all theory beyond it was simply speculation. The state or status of public education is everything. One reads and hears that only capitalist economics are being taught in schools now. Meanwhile we are only about 40 to 60 years away from a global downturn in population (less people, more for everyone, environmental renewal) and yet a financed future based on eternal growth can’t deal with this coming reality and people are being taught to view it as a threat. Ridiculous.
@@wailinburnin virtually everything Marx wrote was speculation. The man was FOS. He famously quarreled with the workers and their leaders. He claimed to know what it was like to be a working man, and yet he never hit a lick of work in his life. He sponged off of his family and friends, especially Frederich Engels. They were both spoiled bourgeoise adolescents.
Let's say that you run a business which is closely competing with a lot of others. You either have the option of promoting an excellent employee, or one who have the old-school ties, but isn't as good. Which would be the better business decision?
Hello comrades
The notion that marks invented communism has long annoyed the you know what out of me .
Thank you comrades! Onward!
Onward to what, exactly?
@@lochnessmunster1189workers revolution dah
@@gathungundaiga5452 Which is just as vague as 'onward'.
@@lochnessmunster1189 workers revolution is vague what type of a philistine are you
@@gathungundaiga5452 Yes, because don't you think that owners of companies can be workers too?
You forgot to tell them that Karl did not have one single job in his life. He used to write articles in a magazine whenever his landlord will ask him for the rent and did not have any money to pay his family rent.
His wife was the same. Both had rich parents and were asking their parents for monetary support all the time.
In fact, Karl wrote to his mother all the time to get his share of his inheritance before she, even, dies. How disgraceful he was to ask his old mother for money support while he was young but lazy-bum.
When he told his mom that he's writing a book abt. Capital. She answered him that you should produce capital before you write abt. it.
He had no respect for his daughters in such three of his daughters died young mostly due to his and wife selfishness.
He was having sex with his house-maid and had a boy from her. Then, he convinced Frederick Engel to tell Karl;s wife that the boy is his son and not karl's. So much feminist that they left her as a house-maid (with no pay - at all- just for food/shelter until she died).
Frederick Engel was such a feminist that he was a womanizer jumping from one woman to another.
Karl died before completing his book and Frederick had to finish it for him after more than one year from Krl's death.
Communism is such a TERRIBLE CONCEPT in such all counties that tried to apply it on their own economy, MISERABLY, FAILED.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS COMMUNIST UTOPIA. (it is a dream that will never come through)
holy brainwashed
Why do you put so much effort into undermining communist ideas if you are so sure it will never come through?
How marx became a Trotskyite??!!!???🤔🤔🤔😂😂😂🤮🤮🤮😂😂😂
Marx was a marxist. Trotsky was the man who preserved marx' correct theory and saved it from the stalinists, so we may be able to study it today
@@mads5707Trotskyite!!!!!!!!!!!!🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮😂😂😂🤮🤮🤮😂😂😂🥱🥱🥱😂😂
@@mads5707, 😆🤣
@@mads5707Sure he did!
35:14 is the only place I see Trotskyism specifically entering into this presentation. He '[doesn't] have time to get into it,' but that surely seems to be the Soviet Union he is alluding to with the warning about what happens when worker revolutions are confined to countries where the material forces have not been sufficiently developed. Other than that, I don't hear anything from him here that Marxists more generally would take issue with.
At 40:10, he first says that Proudhon was considered 'an expert on political economy' in France, but moments later says that he was considered a 'bad economist' in France. Any explanation for that contradiction, other than that the speaker misstated one of those?
Yes, the point being made was that he was considered an expert in political economy in Germany, not France.
Hello the whole comprade World ❤
Yes.. the CPC is improving THE MARXIST EVOLUTION
Super!!! Thank you!
Thank you for sharing this great talk!
Very interesting presentation. Good job by the presenter. Who is he?
His name is Josh Holroyd.
Long story short, he saw, much like Prodhoun before him, that Socialism is when the government does stuff, and if it could do a real lot of stuff, it would be Communism.
May someone please get the, "through a period of long and serious illness, marx read all of hegel" quote sourced?
"During my period of poor health I had gotten to know Hegel from beginning to end, including most of his students." www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1837-pre/letters/37_11_10.htm
Hegel was a GNOSTIC as was Marx and HITLER
Fuckin’ Awesome Comrad!
Karl Marl vision for communism was that with Will spring forth from a disillusionment from late stage capitalism. That being the case he absolutely believed Russia to be a backward state not fit for the grassroots communism, as it wasn’t but for sure the USSR and Joseph Stalin was the worst thing to ever happened to communism it gave it a bad name, I mean even if it’s a bad ideology the Soviet Union did not do it any favors . And it’s almost the perfect mirror image that the media has stunted our economic systems, as capitalism and the economy should be ever evolving and challenged, but we are stunted in our economic beliefs as it is a social science ever conforming to the problems and market situations of the day, instead we view it as a fixed position like some market physics and it and it’s propaganda will be the death of us, as it only perpetuates deeper and deeper inequalities.
the real question is :How did Talmudic-Judaism give birth to Judeo-Communism
❤✊️
Pay attention! Or you won’t get good marks on the test!
Please, take an advice from an old tovarishch:
- Gather with other revolutionary communist parties if possible and make a program with steps to achieve each goal.
- Don't rely on each comrade's individual learning from the Marxist teachings. It will lead nowhere.
Even in the Mickey Mouse country where I live, there are several communist parties.
In my childhood and youth there were many parties of Marxists, Leninists, Trotskist, Stalinists - some also with representatives in parliament.Their ideological differences, which would seem irrelevant today, destroyed all possibilities for uniting the forces -which were strong at the time - and eventually destroyed each of them, leaving the proletariat no voting options.That has been the case till now.
With an inappropriate, but illustrative example: The movement of Christianity was totally hapless until its teachings were canonized. I don't advocate for ideological pressure, but for clarity and thereby strategy. If revolution and communism is up to each comrade in each cell around the would to interpret, this important movement won't succeed; and it could, the time is ripe.
The only problem is that there are no other revolutionary communist parties. Here in denmark, our "communist" party was never communist, because it was stalinist. Since the fall of the USSR, these parties have either gone wholly into reformism or sectarianism. If these parties accept a correct marxist position, we would be open to dialogue, to do anything else would be sectarian. The parties of yesterday did have very relevant ideological differences, it would be naive to imagine a trotskyist and a stalinist party collaborating, since they are sworn enemies of each other, for very clear reasons. It would be a huge mistake to make theoretical compromises with the stalinist parties, because that would be the exact opposite of theoretical clarity.
@@mads5707I basically agree. It's a shame, though, when parties being fundamentally anti-capitalist can't unite on this crucial topic - rare as it is.
Hopefully youth have realized that disagreement should not divide as the capitalist depends upon that strategy to defeat unity because women watch men's egos prevent unity of purpose that hasn't changed in 4,000 years.
Marx didn't become a communist, he gradually taught himself of Hegel's phenomenology of CAPITAL and then of class struggle. The seeds of Marxism can be found in Hegel. Communism is what Hegel taught Marx of the phenomenology of evolution of humanity.
'Class struggle'? Do you actually believe that the 'classes' are clearly defined?
Good talk about the history, but I'd disagree with the analysis. Marx's early commitment to free speech is a communist position, which he held all his life. There's no cause to dismiss it as an example of youthful liberalism. By contrast, the Manifesto, with its many liberal proposals, was a mistep. As Marx and Engels later acknowledged, its proposals for nationalisation etc. were quickly outdated and the text was repudiated by the mature Marx.
Communists fight for the most advanced democratic rights, I don’t think Josh was dismissing it, but the point is it’s not a communist demand on its own.
Marx agreed with many liberal positions BUT he saw flaws in liberal idealism, such liberty, fraternity, equality, etc. what do the words actually mean? Marx addresses the limits of these ideas within historical material contexts.
But the best example to give is Marx’s argument against private property is in partial agreement with Locke’s defense for private property. Namely if private property is a means that a laborer can secure the fruits of their labor (which Locke wrote) and laborer has no access to his own private property especially under the circumstances of monopoly and industrialism. Then the main argument for private property is erroneous, it is not the means for the majority of laborers to secure the value of their labor.
He then makes a distinction between private property (means of production) and personal property (such as a house).
in order for liberalism to fullfill its promise of securing labor value for the workers the work place should be mutually owned.
So many of the elements of liberalism are incorporated into Marx’s ideas but with a material analysis rather than a mere idealist concept.
Equality is another big issue Marx tackled with Engels, coming to the conclusion “Each according to their ability, each according to their need.” Absolute equality was impossible and absurd. Work is rewarded by ability, but those not able, the elderly and disabled, still have need. This is a more coherent idea than mere “equality”.
@@saschabenjaminmusic7472 That's fair enough, actually. But to suggest that the CM is an expression of the mature Marx's communism is problematic. The measures listed at the end of section 2 are bourgeois-democratic. That made sense in 1848, but even by the end of Marx's life, they were outdated. The trouble with the Socialist Appeal perspective, in my view, is that they don't see that Marx and Engels' early prescriptions (e.g. nationalisation) cannot represent the aims of communists now.
@@matthewkopp2391 I agree with all of that, yes.
@@shellyshelly9218 what’s bourgeois-democratic about expropriating the banks and top 150 monopolies and putting them under workers’ control?
His mother said no, his daughters asked for food.
That's how.
Thanks. Was this friend in a hurry? Those who are trying to create an international must always keep in mind that they are not addressing only English speakers.
Why don't you make short videos
Too much to say in a short video
@@sylvann7501 👍
A typical scene from the left: the guy sitting next to the speaker is constantly nodding his head in approval of what the other person says. He is too busy making it clear that NOTHING the other says is new to him! He's a know-it-all and wants to make sure the audience knows that...
🤔 looks black
Bello
Dialectics is a powerful method to understand and track an individual's consciousness and collective as well.
It is indeed powerful, but Hegel turned it into an addictive and confused Hermetic mess. Marx then applied it where Hegel never intended it to be - in the real world rather than philosophical discourse, which means that you don't just get to rip up your own philosophical ideas, you get to rip up society and reality. With all the catastrophe that follows, and no means to systematically mend all the things you've broken as a result. Which is one reason why Marxism, not to mention its derivatives, fails every time.
Fuuuu
The amount of Communists on youtube is boring af
One Communist, two Communists, *many* Communists. A *number* of Communists. Fewer Communists. How *many* Communists?
@@stavroskarageorgis4804 Too many Communists.
@@lochnessmunster1189 So, not "amount (sic) of Communists".
Did his illegitimate kid from his maid became a commuinzt?
how a loser became an even bigger loser
Is that what your books are about - how big a loser Karl Marx is?
Describing yourself by not watching this video.
Triggered much, snowflake?
marx waz a great perzon, he wanted to offer his azz to all so he became a communizt
I wanted to watch, I will have to just listen due to the distracting, irritating tool in the background constantly nodding his head. And why is Josh filmed from the side?
You should always listen unless something is visual for the lecture. You became distracted and you should have adapted immediately to actually listen to the words.
@@kp6215 I “should” have adapted immediately? That is a value judgment.
Here’s another one. You should not tell me how to watch or listen to videos. Have you heard of neurodiversity, autism or inattentive type ADHD?
Some people adapt “immediately” more easily than others. Your arrogance is offensive to me and your advice is patronising.
A tip (in case it helps) -- if you turn on the closed captioning feature, it mostly blocks out that head.
@@ronmackinnon9374 Thanks for that advice. I appreciate it.
People still talking about communism? 😂
Why is this funny I am asking from africa
'Great expose w/thumbs up! However, several critical comments, please:
* Expressing a fundamental Human Nature as a behavioral/belief template is only 'ideologucal' to those who imagine humans to be Tabula Rasa at birth.
* Otherwise, the Kantian account that most al of us are born with empathy is as "antural" as not.
* To this Kantian end, yes, we're all born withthe innate, unexpressed idea "To each...from each"...ergo born communist.
* Therefore, being born into a capitalist Society means unlearning fundamental truths.
* Conversely, rediscovering communism is indicated in the practical ethical activity of working communist precepts out in the real world
* Ergo, "Marxiism".
* In this manner, as well, we can refer back to the Kantian "Crooked Timber" notion that a greedy. evil side exists along with the ethical Good.
* said capacity is the point of departure of the Frankfurt School under the rubric of Freud; greed corresponds to humanity's evil side.
* That's why Lukas' History & "Class Consciousness persistantly refers cabck to a Kant that marxo=paranoids label as 'idealist".
The cult of Marx
It's either that or the cult of capital.
@@subcitizen2012 There need not ne only two choices. And what is capital if not value.
@@subcitizen2012Not true. Only a devout follower of the bourgeois cult of Marx would say so.
@@chocomalk It would be the form of value and should not be confused with value itself
@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 Value is subjective but capital is not. What different people value personally is not the same as something that has utility inherent. You may not personally value a truss but everyone values the utility of a truss.