"If you saved a penny for each daughter you named Jenny, you might not had needed to bury quite so many." It's hilarious how that diss is Miss Carriage levels of disgusting, yet Ford still lost.
This one switches between the qualities of the raps because while Ford starts out strong but has less to use against Marx by the end imo, Marx is generally agreed to get much better verses as the battle goes on and brings up a lot of stuff average citizens would prefer having implemented rather than being completely dominated by capitalism Also curious to see what you'd think of the comics battle (George Carlin vs Richard Pryor)
Another good one! Ruthless for sure though. My suggestion for up next would be Theodore Roosevelt vs Winston Churchill! Excellent one that has a similar clash of ideals going on and is one of my favorites. Similarly if you want another idealogy focused battle could go for Rasputin vs Stalin
With the voice NicePeter used when he said "I produce with my two hands ..." it reminds like Steven Spielberg singing "I produce cartoons and make games for all ages ..."
This one quickly became an automatic fan favorite, it originated from a poll which won rather effortlessly Not one of my personal favorites, but I can acknowledge it being solidly well made just for the musical factor as well as research that went into the two figures who warranted an important appearance in the series to begin with It's one of the few battles were they custom made their own beat, very reminiscent of 90's hip-hop and it shows The match-up was originally conceived as Adam Smith vs Karl Marx years ago, while it can make sense at a glance, but getting down to how their works came to be, Marx was highly influenced by Smith and wouldn't find a good way to really get onto him for his beliefs, much less when Smith as a figure doesn't have a lot most people can be familiar with Ford on the other hand is much more of the embodiment of modern day capitalism and basically invented the processes businesses use now that would go against Marx's own beliefs, so it was a much better call to put it simply lol Still pulling for George Carlin vs Richard Pryor or Issac Newton vs Bill Nye as one of the next one's to view Either way, fantastic reaction as always :)
I'm a Marx man all the way. The line that i think is my favorite considering i am a political activist (as well as a climate activist) especially when it comes to worker's rights is the line "You controlled what employees could think, drink, and eat, and when they marched for better wages shot them dead in the street." This is referring to the Ford Hunger Strike also sometimes literally called the Ford Massacre, where more than 60 striking workers were injured and 5 were killed, shot by both police and security employed by Ford. People can call Marx a "freeloader" all they want (which is objectively and historically false) but if that's his worse quality people want to point at I'll take it. Ford, not only was he a Nazi, legitimately, but he literally paid security employees to shoot dead his own striking workers. I'll take freeloader over murderous capitalist all day, everyday.
@@daryl772003 If you actually read a history book and don't just listen to the cult of Tesla/the people who say "grrr capitalism bad", you find out the truth is pretty complicated. Tesla was no angel and Edison wasn't the devil, also they were actually pretty good friends in life.
@@AmericanBrit9834 Regardless of any particular individual and their story within capitalism, it actually is no more complicated than "grrr capitalism bad." It really is as simple as that. Capitalism is a system based, fundamentally since it's inception, on exploitation of labor. The real kicker is when all those people say "Look at all that capitalism has brought us. All the advancements that we enjoy today were only possible because of capitalism." First of all, that's not true in a practical sense. Capitalism has been around, officially defined since like the 1500s I believe. So that's now about 524 years of capitalism. The idea that if we had a socialist or communist society that ran continuously for 524 years we wouldn't have exactly the same advancements and luxuries and just all these wonderful things that we have access to is just absurd. Secondly though, it is not simply the economic system of capitalism that we are thanking, because it wasn't strictly a baseline of capitalism that lead us here. Capitalism did something extra to make all this stuff come true and that extra thing is called Slavery. See, you can have exploitation of labor, paying your workers a reduced ratio compared to what the fruit of their labor is being sold at, and never have slavery. Exploitation is fundamental to capitalism. Slavery is not, and just about every fundamental structure both physical and metaphorical, that paved the way for the modern western world, and indeed most of the world even before capitalism - was created from the blood, sweat, and tears of slaves. Now building modern western society might have been possible without slaves, but that's not the point. Slavery is not fundamental to capitalism, yet capitalist society went ahead and engaged in slavery in order to build what it built. So when all those people say look at all that capitalism gave us, what they are really saying is look at all that slavery gave us. It wasn't capitalism, it was capitalism engaged in slavery. However, regardless, as I said, exploitation itself is absolutely fundamental to capitalism. It's one of the pillars that define it. You cannot have capitalism and you cannot bear any fruits from capitalism without a fundamental system of oppression, subjugation, and exploitation built into its foundation. So again, in that way, it very much is no more complex than "grrr capitalism bad."
@@BadassRaiden So please tell me, what system actually works better and has proven to work unlike communism/socialism which is responsible for literally millions of deaths from famine and would obliterate any motivation for innovation? What will you choose: oppression/exploitation of labor or a system that *doesn't work*? Capitalism isn't perfect but it is far and away the best we have. Not to mention, pure Capitalism is actually quite rare thanks to one of it's greatest strengths, it's ability to assimilate. Plenty of socialist practices have been added to the modern systems of capitalism to help society as a whole and it is disingenuous to suggest modern capitalism does nothing for the people. The very fact that we have the technology to discuss this on the internet would not be possible if not for capitalism pushing innovation.
@AmericanBrit9834 Please go read a book or two or five. First of all, communism and socialism is not responsible for millions of deaths from famine. It is well documented by historians that the famines that happened in Russia were completely and totally orchestrated by Stalin in order to assert his power and make the population more dependent on the state for survival, as well as a way to beat them into submission. You cannot take individual actions of people and attribute the outcomes to any system in which they are acting, if that that system is not based fundamentally upon actions like that. This is exactly why we can blame capitalism for all the problems that happened *under* it while the issues that happened *under* socialism and communism are not direct results of those systems. Nowhere in the definition of communism or socialism - and by definition I mean the full economic definition, not a simple paragraph in Webster's dictionary - does it say that control and subjugation and authoritarianism are fundamental to communism or socialism. However, in the economic definition of capitalism, is absolutely DOES say that exploitation of labor is fundamental to maintaining the very existence of the capitalist class. When people in power do things, you blame them. Period. You only get to blame the system if the system dictated their decision to engage in those actions. You don't get to blame communism or socialism for what Stalin or Mao did, because neither socialism or communism are a blueprint which requires him to do that. Capitalism on the other hand, is absolutely a blueprint that requires exploitation and subjugation in order to manifest. Second, the idea that it will obliterate motivation for innovation is completely and totally delusional because we know for a fact that that is simply not true, as we have plenty of examples in the world. Capitalism does not drive innovation. Period. So let's stomp that fairytale out. When corporations are allowed to buy competition, innovation goes right out the fucking window. This is absolutely undeniable. Also, when the goal is profits, you are never going to make a product that will last forever that people will only ever have to buy once. Innovation isn't just about making things different, it's about making things better, and the ultimate triumph of innovation is creating something that can't get better. You know that back in the early 20th century there was a company that made lightbulbs that lasted 100+ years? Did you know that all the top lightbulb manufacturing companies got together, came to an agreement where they would take turns being the number one company, and then in that agreement pooled their resources to completely bury the company making bulbs that last a century? Currently there is only one of those bulbs left, and it exists in a firehouse in California and has been on virtually continuously with very few interruptions, since 1901. This is called Planned Obsolescence and it is a direct result of capitalism. Things in a capitalist society are built specifically to not last long, and to break down before reasonably necessary. This is literally why phone batteries are designed to last barely long enough to cover the standard warranty period. This was a whole scandal several years ago where it was exposed that the standard warranty was 12 and that the batteries were designed only to last like 14-16 months, so that you would have no problems during the warranty period that would make you need a replacement, and then when you did, the warranty period would be over, wouldn't not cover a replacement and would force you to buy a whole new phone yourself. This is done with virtually every product produced in our society today. We know how to make screens that take A LOT to crack, to make shoes that take a decade to break down, to make discs far more resilient to scratching, but we don't, because it's both far too expensive for capitalists and cuts into their quest for eternal profits as people will no longer have to continuously buy replacements. Third, you can't claim that these systems "don't work". A) there are plenty of socialized capitalist countries with greater quality of life than capitalist countries with less socialism, but I'll get to that point later because it interjects with something else you suggest. B) there has never been an actual communist country, with a communist economic system, so you cannot in any way claim that it is a system that doesn't work. To be defined as communist, a society MUST have BOTH the following characteristics: the working class must own the means of productivity, and the entity of the State must be dissolved. There is no country on earth where this has taken place. Ever. Soviet Russia was not communist. It had a command economy, and was socialist. It's failures had to do with the totalitarian rule of Stalin and his specific actions that he and he alone is responsible for, and also have to do with Gorbachev's failure because despite wanting to transform the Soviet Union communist initially, he was handed a country that had far too many problems for him to deal with, and tried to deal with them all simultaneously, in a manner that was not effective or adequate to handle the task. When it comes to Mao, he said he was communist ideologically, but his actions contradict that statement, and he also tried to transform China economically in a manner that China simply did not have the capacity to handle changing in that way and at the rate he attempted. Fourth, and this is the thing I was going to get to, assimilation in the manner in which you are talking, is not a strength of capitalism. If you have a capitalist country and you add socialist aspects to it and the quality of life goes up - that is not a triumph you hand to capitalism. That is a direct result of those socialist aspects. If socialism improves capitalist societies, it's clear that socialism does something better and indeed, more socialist capitalist countries around the world have higher quality of life than lesser socialized ones. This is a simple fact. The idea that we should clap our hands and congratulate capitalism when socialism comes in and makes things better is a ridiculous and absurd delusion. Fifth, and I really hate this argument, the idea that capitalism is solely responsible for everything we currently have technologically and socially is also a complete and total fucking delusion. Capitalism as currently defined has been around for 500 years or so, since the 1500s. The idea that if we instead had socialism or communism for that 500 years and we wouldn't have the same advancements that we currently have is unfounded, based on no practical evidence because there is no way to demonstrate this, nor is it based on any empirical or philosophical evidence. To return to your comment about innovation, we currently see that more socialized countries are actually ahead in terms of innovation and it's pretty clear why: When you give people social nets that allow them the freedom to choose what one pursues in their life, instead of being forced to engage in this one specific job, a whole lot more ideas manifest. This is an objective fact that we can currently measure in the world. You people act like in socialist or communist countries, with all necessities provided, people would be lazy, no one would ever work, and nothing new would ever be discovered or invented. This is empirically false and we have the observations to prove it. If the US, the richest country in the history of human civilization, with more resources at it disposal than most others combined, if it was more socialist, and we gave more funding to research instead of tax breaks and subsidies to the wealthy, as well as assimilated Big Pharma as part of the state instead of allowing it to be it's conglomerate of individual corporations - we'd have a cure for cancer 10 years ago. All the current discoveries we are making with cancer treatment, we would have discovered years ago if this country wasn't so hard-line capitalist. Lastly, you want to complain about millions of people dying of famine and blaming communism and socialism for it... As I said, capitalism has been around for roughly 500 years, literal centuries longer than both socialism and communism combined. The largest estimate of deaths often attributed to communism or socialism is 100 million. Capitalism has resulted in an estimated 500-800 million deaths, not even accounting for systematic violence, deaths due to environmental destruction, or indirect deaths steming from economic exploitation. So, probably closer to 1 billion people. I mean even in contemporary society, 9 million people die ANNUALLY around the globe due to hunger and other economic related issues, despite the fact that it's been proven human society has the ability to end world hunger and indeed poverty itself. 100 million because of socialism and communism? It's 2024. In the last two dozen years, nearly doubled that number have died from hunger and related economic issues as a direct result of capitalism and capitalist structures. I think it's very obvious which system works better and which system I or any reasonable individual would choose.
Marx's round 3 is just the most savage, unrelenting destruction of an opponent ever in ERB. It completely de-throned Vader's comeback in Hitler vs Vader 3.
Marx’s line about books is so real because reading Marx tells you all of Ford’s points are bs, Marx and Engels wrote a whole book about how socialism isn’t utopian, for example
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, lays out perfectly the utopian ideas of old, and how Marxism uses a strictly scientific view of the world to come to conclusions. Anyone who claims that socialism (as it is known today) is utopian, is simply ignorant, and that isn't meant derogatorily.
What stands out to me is that while Ford had good bars against Marx; Marx's land harder in regards to Captialism vs Communism, because while most communist countries have by and large failed to function, capitalist countries are becoming the very thing they oppose. It's the modern monarchy where the country is run by oligarchs and plutocracies. While Marx's solutions were flawed given that it relies too heavily on good will, his criticisms are proven right every day with how modern society functions. To loosely quote Jax Teller from Sons of Anarchy: "We're tired of being crushed under the weight of greedy men and women who believe in nothing."
Look up Fordlândia. They're not becoming what they oppose, and it's not modern monarchies. Capitalism is an economic philosophy centered on the idea that people should hoard as much wealth and power as they can. And the wealthiest capitalists have always been trying to start corporatocracies.
To further note, communist countries mostly failed due to foreign backed coups and sabotage, it’s not all of them mind you (the USSR and China certainly fucked up on their own for example), but Burkina Faso, Cuba, etc, all of those countries were couped and gaslit into blaming communism for their faults.
I'm a socialist, so I sympathize a lot with Marx even though his specific ideas arent always the most...agreeable at times. Still though, this is a rap battle, so I judge on actual verses, and I think Marx does edge out on verses here.
@BadassRaiden He literally mooched off his parents until being cut off, and then Mooched off Engels and even made him raise his illegitimate child. Are you the Ghost of Marx or something? It's a widely known fact that he was scum.
Yeah I’m a libertarian Marxist closer to what Marx actually is. Don’t wanna debate logistics but can definitely say ford and Marx were close in the beggining but the end really sealed fro or Marx for me
@@BadassRaiden They probably mean libertarian in the classical sense - that is before the deliberate attempt by the right to hijack the word. Originally, libertarian was mostly synonymous with anarchist.
This battle is easily one of my favorites. That boombap beat went crazy hard.
"If you saved a penny for each daughter you named Jenny, you might not had needed to bury quite so many."
It's hilarious how that diss is Miss Carriage levels of disgusting, yet Ford still lost.
This one switches between the qualities of the raps because while Ford starts out strong but has less to use against Marx by the end imo, Marx is generally agreed to get much better verses as the battle goes on and brings up a lot of stuff average citizens would prefer having implemented rather than being completely dominated by capitalism
Also curious to see what you'd think of the comics battle (George Carlin vs Richard Pryor)
That one is coming up next 😅
Henry Ford fired some good shots
But Marx brought a bazooka to the fight
Very nice. Been waiting for this one.
The acronym at the end is brilliant.
Found
On
Road
Dead
Great reaction as always, eager to see Winston Churchill vs Theodore Roosevelt
From what I've heard that acronym comes from old Fords doing exactly that. Randomly dying on the road.
Another good one! Ruthless for sure though.
My suggestion for up next would be Theodore Roosevelt vs Winston Churchill! Excellent one that has a similar clash of ideals going on and is one of my favorites.
Similarly if you want another idealogy focused battle could go for Rasputin vs Stalin
With the voice NicePeter used when he said "I produce with my two hands ..." it reminds like Steven Spielberg singing "I produce cartoons and make games for all ages ..."
Also requesting George Carlin vs Richard Pryor
This one quickly became an automatic fan favorite, it originated from a poll which won rather effortlessly
Not one of my personal favorites, but I can acknowledge it being solidly well made just for the musical factor as well as research that went into the two figures who warranted an important appearance in the series to begin with
It's one of the few battles were they custom made their own beat, very reminiscent of 90's hip-hop and it shows
The match-up was originally conceived as Adam Smith vs Karl Marx years ago, while it can make sense at a glance, but getting down to how their works came to be, Marx was highly influenced by Smith and wouldn't find a good way to really get onto him for his beliefs, much less when Smith as a figure doesn't have a lot most people can be familiar with
Ford on the other hand is much more of the embodiment of modern day capitalism and basically invented the processes businesses use now that would go against Marx's own beliefs, so it was a much better call to put it simply lol
Still pulling for George Carlin vs Richard Pryor or Issac Newton vs Bill Nye as one of the next one's to view
Either way, fantastic reaction as always :)
I'm a Marx man all the way. The line that i think is my favorite considering i am a political activist (as well as a climate activist) especially when it comes to worker's rights is the line "You controlled what employees could think, drink, and eat, and when they marched for better wages shot them dead in the street." This is referring to the Ford Hunger Strike also sometimes literally called the Ford Massacre, where more than 60 striking workers were injured and 5 were killed, shot by both police and security employed by Ford. People can call Marx a "freeloader" all they want (which is objectively and historically false) but if that's his worse quality people want to point at I'll take it. Ford, not only was he a Nazi, legitimately, but he literally paid security employees to shoot dead his own striking workers. I'll take freeloader over murderous capitalist all day, everyday.
learning about the real history of both of these figures is really all you need to do in order to come to a conclusion of who was better :3
Just like the one between Tesla and Edison
@@daryl772003 If you actually read a history book and don't just listen to the cult of Tesla/the people who say "grrr capitalism bad", you find out the truth is pretty complicated. Tesla was no angel and Edison wasn't the devil, also they were actually pretty good friends in life.
@@AmericanBrit9834 Regardless of any particular individual and their story within capitalism, it actually is no more complicated than "grrr capitalism bad." It really is as simple as that. Capitalism is a system based, fundamentally since it's inception, on exploitation of labor. The real kicker is when all those people say "Look at all that capitalism has brought us. All the advancements that we enjoy today were only possible because of capitalism." First of all, that's not true in a practical sense. Capitalism has been around, officially defined since like the 1500s I believe. So that's now about 524 years of capitalism. The idea that if we had a socialist or communist society that ran continuously for 524 years we wouldn't have exactly the same advancements and luxuries and just all these wonderful things that we have access to is just absurd.
Secondly though, it is not simply the economic system of capitalism that we are thanking, because it wasn't strictly a baseline of capitalism that lead us here. Capitalism did something extra to make all this stuff come true and that extra thing is called Slavery. See, you can have exploitation of labor, paying your workers a reduced ratio compared to what the fruit of their labor is being sold at, and never have slavery. Exploitation is fundamental to capitalism. Slavery is not, and just about every fundamental structure both physical and metaphorical, that paved the way for the modern western world, and indeed most of the world even before capitalism - was created from the blood, sweat, and tears of slaves.
Now building modern western society might have been possible without slaves, but that's not the point. Slavery is not fundamental to capitalism, yet capitalist society went ahead and engaged in slavery in order to build what it built. So when all those people say look at all that capitalism gave us, what they are really saying is look at all that slavery gave us. It wasn't capitalism, it was capitalism engaged in slavery.
However, regardless, as I said, exploitation itself is absolutely fundamental to capitalism. It's one of the pillars that define it. You cannot have capitalism and you cannot bear any fruits from capitalism without a fundamental system of oppression, subjugation, and exploitation built into its foundation. So again, in that way, it very much is no more complex than "grrr capitalism bad."
@@BadassRaiden So please tell me, what system actually works better and has proven to work unlike communism/socialism which is responsible for literally millions of deaths from famine and would obliterate any motivation for innovation? What will you choose: oppression/exploitation of labor or a system that *doesn't work*? Capitalism isn't perfect but it is far and away the best we have. Not to mention, pure Capitalism is actually quite rare thanks to one of it's greatest strengths, it's ability to assimilate. Plenty of socialist practices have been added to the modern systems of capitalism to help society as a whole and it is disingenuous to suggest modern capitalism does nothing for the people. The very fact that we have the technology to discuss this on the internet would not be possible if not for capitalism pushing innovation.
@AmericanBrit9834 Please go read a book or two or five. First of all, communism and socialism is not responsible for millions of deaths from famine. It is well documented by historians that the famines that happened in Russia were completely and totally orchestrated by Stalin in order to assert his power and make the population more dependent on the state for survival, as well as a way to beat them into submission. You cannot take individual actions of people and attribute the outcomes to any system in which they are acting, if that that system is not based fundamentally upon actions like that. This is exactly why we can blame capitalism for all the problems that happened *under* it while the issues that happened *under* socialism and communism are not direct results of those systems. Nowhere in the definition of communism or socialism - and by definition I mean the full economic definition, not a simple paragraph in Webster's dictionary - does it say that control and subjugation and authoritarianism are fundamental to communism or socialism. However, in the economic definition of capitalism, is absolutely DOES say that exploitation of labor is fundamental to maintaining the very existence of the capitalist class.
When people in power do things, you blame them. Period. You only get to blame the system if the system dictated their decision to engage in those actions. You don't get to blame communism or socialism for what Stalin or Mao did, because neither socialism or communism are a blueprint which requires him to do that. Capitalism on the other hand, is absolutely a blueprint that requires exploitation and subjugation in order to manifest.
Second, the idea that it will obliterate motivation for innovation is completely and totally delusional because we know for a fact that that is simply not true, as we have plenty of examples in the world. Capitalism does not drive innovation. Period. So let's stomp that fairytale out. When corporations are allowed to buy competition, innovation goes right out the fucking window. This is absolutely undeniable. Also, when the goal is profits, you are never going to make a product that will last forever that people will only ever have to buy once. Innovation isn't just about making things different, it's about making things better, and the ultimate triumph of innovation is creating something that can't get better. You know that back in the early 20th century there was a company that made lightbulbs that lasted 100+ years? Did you know that all the top lightbulb manufacturing companies got together, came to an agreement where they would take turns being the number one company, and then in that agreement pooled their resources to completely bury the company making bulbs that last a century? Currently there is only one of those bulbs left, and it exists in a firehouse in California and has been on virtually continuously with very few interruptions, since 1901.
This is called Planned Obsolescence and it is a direct result of capitalism. Things in a capitalist society are built specifically to not last long, and to break down before reasonably necessary. This is literally why phone batteries are designed to last barely long enough to cover the standard warranty period. This was a whole scandal several years ago where it was exposed that the standard warranty was 12 and that the batteries were designed only to last like 14-16 months, so that you would have no problems during the warranty period that would make you need a replacement, and then when you did, the warranty period would be over, wouldn't not cover a replacement and would force you to buy a whole new phone yourself. This is done with virtually every product produced in our society today. We know how to make screens that take A LOT to crack, to make shoes that take a decade to break down, to make discs far more resilient to scratching, but we don't, because it's both far too expensive for capitalists and cuts into their quest for eternal profits as people will no longer have to continuously buy replacements.
Third, you can't claim that these systems "don't work". A) there are plenty of socialized capitalist countries with greater quality of life than capitalist countries with less socialism, but I'll get to that point later because it interjects with something else you suggest. B) there has never been an actual communist country, with a communist economic system, so you cannot in any way claim that it is a system that doesn't work. To be defined as communist, a society MUST have BOTH the following characteristics: the working class must own the means of productivity, and the entity of the State must be dissolved. There is no country on earth where this has taken place. Ever. Soviet Russia was not communist. It had a command economy, and was socialist. It's failures had to do with the totalitarian rule of Stalin and his specific actions that he and he alone is responsible for, and also have to do with Gorbachev's failure because despite wanting to transform the Soviet Union communist initially, he was handed a country that had far too many problems for him to deal with, and tried to deal with them all simultaneously, in a manner that was not effective or adequate to handle the task. When it comes to Mao, he said he was communist ideologically, but his actions contradict that statement, and he also tried to transform China economically in a manner that China simply did not have the capacity to handle changing in that way and at the rate he attempted.
Fourth, and this is the thing I was going to get to, assimilation in the manner in which you are talking, is not a strength of capitalism. If you have a capitalist country and you add socialist aspects to it and the quality of life goes up - that is not a triumph you hand to capitalism. That is a direct result of those socialist aspects. If socialism improves capitalist societies, it's clear that socialism does something better and indeed, more socialist capitalist countries around the world have higher quality of life than lesser socialized ones. This is a simple fact. The idea that we should clap our hands and congratulate capitalism when socialism comes in and makes things better is a ridiculous and absurd delusion.
Fifth, and I really hate this argument, the idea that capitalism is solely responsible for everything we currently have technologically and socially is also a complete and total fucking delusion. Capitalism as currently defined has been around for 500 years or so, since the 1500s. The idea that if we instead had socialism or communism for that 500 years and we wouldn't have the same advancements that we currently have is unfounded, based on no practical evidence because there is no way to demonstrate this, nor is it based on any empirical or philosophical evidence. To return to your comment about innovation, we currently see that more socialized countries are actually ahead in terms of innovation and it's pretty clear why: When you give people social nets that allow them the freedom to choose what one pursues in their life, instead of being forced to engage in this one specific job, a whole lot more ideas manifest. This is an objective fact that we can currently measure in the world.
You people act like in socialist or communist countries, with all necessities provided, people would be lazy, no one would ever work, and nothing new would ever be discovered or invented. This is empirically false and we have the observations to prove it. If the US, the richest country in the history of human civilization, with more resources at it disposal than most others combined, if it was more socialist, and we gave more funding to research instead of tax breaks and subsidies to the wealthy, as well as assimilated Big Pharma as part of the state instead of allowing it to be it's conglomerate of individual corporations - we'd have a cure for cancer 10 years ago. All the current discoveries we are making with cancer treatment, we would have discovered years ago if this country wasn't so hard-line capitalist.
Lastly, you want to complain about millions of people dying of famine and blaming communism and socialism for it... As I said, capitalism has been around for roughly 500 years, literal centuries longer than both socialism and communism combined. The largest estimate of deaths often attributed to communism or socialism is 100 million. Capitalism has resulted in an estimated 500-800 million deaths, not even accounting for systematic violence, deaths due to environmental destruction, or indirect deaths steming from economic exploitation. So, probably closer to 1 billion people. I mean even in contemporary society, 9 million people die ANNUALLY around the globe due to hunger and other economic related issues, despite the fact that it's been proven human society has the ability to end world hunger and indeed poverty itself. 100 million because of socialism and communism? It's 2024. In the last two dozen years, nearly doubled that number have died from hunger and related economic issues as a direct result of capitalism and capitalist structures.
I think it's very obvious which system works better and which system I or any reasonable individual would choose.
Marx's round 3 is just the most savage, unrelenting destruction of an opponent ever in ERB. It completely de-throned Vader's comeback in Hitler vs Vader 3.
Marx’s line about books is so real because reading Marx tells you all of Ford’s points are bs, Marx and Engels wrote a whole book about how socialism isn’t utopian, for example
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, lays out perfectly the utopian ideas of old, and how Marxism uses a strictly scientific view of the world to come to conclusions. Anyone who claims that socialism (as it is known today) is utopian, is simply ignorant, and that isn't meant derogatorily.
Like I said before, Karl Marx rolled over Henry Ford 3 to 1.
No they were a lot closer than that.
Marx last verse was hard but Ford had a lot of punches.
@@samhilton4173 punches that said the exact same thing "You're stinky"
@@samhilton4173Just calling him stinky and gross over and over isn't punches. Ford tho calling out his dead kids and Stalin and Mao were punches
100th LIKE YES!!!
What stands out to me is that while Ford had good bars against Marx; Marx's land harder in regards to Captialism vs Communism, because while most communist countries have by and large failed to function, capitalist countries are becoming the very thing they oppose. It's the modern monarchy where the country is run by oligarchs and plutocracies. While Marx's solutions were flawed given that it relies too heavily on good will, his criticisms are proven right every day with how modern society functions.
To loosely quote Jax Teller from Sons of Anarchy: "We're tired of being crushed under the weight of greedy men and women who believe in nothing."
Look up Fordlândia. They're not becoming what they oppose, and it's not modern monarchies. Capitalism is an economic philosophy centered on the idea that people should hoard as much wealth and power as they can. And the wealthiest capitalists have always been trying to start corporatocracies.
To further note, communist countries mostly failed due to foreign backed coups and sabotage, it’s not all of them mind you (the USSR and China certainly fucked up on their own for example), but Burkina Faso, Cuba, etc, all of those countries were couped and gaslit into blaming communism for their faults.
Ford had good lines but Marx destroyed him and I don’t see how people think otherwise
I'm a socialist, so I sympathize a lot with Marx even though his specific ideas arent always the most...agreeable at times. Still though, this is a rap battle, so I judge on actual verses, and I think Marx does edge out on verses here.
Socialism is slavery.
Marx was a freeloader, so it makes sense that ERB would carry his lines too
I think you need to educate yourself on some history my guy.
@BadassRaiden He was a couch surfer that mooched off his friends bro.
@ventilated6443 lol you literally have no idea what you are talking about.
@BadassRaiden He literally mooched off his parents until being cut off, and then Mooched off Engels and even made him raise his illegitimate child. Are you the Ghost of Marx or something? It's a widely known fact that he was scum.
Yeah I’m a libertarian Marxist closer to what Marx actually is. Don’t wanna debate logistics but can definitely say ford and Marx were close in the beggining but the end really sealed fro or Marx for me
Wouldn't attribute much in the way of libertarian ideas to Marx - His beef with Bakunin made his position on authority clear.
In no way shape or form was Marx even remotely associated with libertarian ideas.
@@BadassRaiden They probably mean libertarian in the classical sense - that is before the deliberate attempt by the right to hijack the word. Originally, libertarian was mostly synonymous with anarchist.