The petit bourgeoisie that Marx talked about has just been extended beyond just small business owners. Sometimes described as the professional managerial class (a revisionist term, I admit), it exists of the bottom and middle managers, the university professors, human resources, psychologists. Basically those that do unproductive labor that have some position of authority over those that engage in productive labor (including software and financial packages, like you argued in this video) and then get some compensation (better incomes) for keeping the productive classes servile. They believe themselves they exist to help those below them, when they too are the proletariat, for they engage in labor all the same. Owning a house, and even a small business does not make you a true part of the capitalist class. The true bourgeois hold enough capital that they don't have to engage in labor to accumulate wealth. This lack of class awareness forms the entire basis for class warfare. How to generate class awareness in this group, I have no clue (yet). The very nature of their work creates this air of superiority and elitism, for they went the university to learn how to uphold that control after all and surely must know better. Again great video though, loving this entire series even though your title is very much leftists rage bait lol
In my experience, class solidarity comes from shared experience, like under Stalin. I don't necessarily have any solidarity for the self-described "working class" who make $100k per year, but I have a great deal for the homeless and for the extremely poor in general. This is because I slept in the same shelter (18 to a room, mats on the floor) and ate at the same packed soup kitchen as they did for 100 days. Sometimes on the Internet, I hear people say things like "they won't learn class consciousness until they are starving", and things like that. But that's not true; communal living will do it.
Smug liberal exceptionalists like that are the worst. The Enlightened centrist type, that thinks they have this top down view over all of society. All of it's structures, 'laws', 'order' & 'rules'. Will also claim they are a "progressive", say jingoistic imperialist nonsense like"Israel has a right to defend itself" or "China bad, Russia bad, Iran bad". And some recent revisionist insanity like Ukraine is closer to EU culturally than Russia. That's like me saying here in the North of Ireland, we are closer to EU/mainland Europe than we are to specific to our nearest geological & culturally neighbours of Britain. We are so close to the Gaelic British in Scotland genetically, culturally, linguistically to be somewhat indistinguishable to those unfamiliar with the differences. The Anglo Saxon less so but still very prominent. Now as much as I hate the Brits( Top 0.000000000001% for sure ) I'm not revising history with a lie that any child is able to spot.
I think adding subtitles where you can also highlight the technical terms might make it easier to follow (similar to what Unsolicited Advice is doing). Otherwise keep up the good work!
The service sector and advertising is analysed by Guy Debord who applies Marxist theory to mid 20th Century capitalism, specifically France in the 1960s.
Marx also discusses servants of the upper class as a service, yet a luxury service at that, in Capital vol I, pg. 574 Penguin edition/Fowkes translation.
You are a very cogent and insightful educator! What you say right at the end is very true, the analytical tools Marx provides are so broad and deep that contemporary Marxists and Marxian economists are able to adapt them to a view on modern financial capitalism very easily and describe that system better than prevailling economic theories very reliably. I think one thing people forget is that the subtitle of Capital is "A Critique of Political Economy" and as such ANY formation or transformation of political economy (capitalist or otherwise) is able to be analyzed from the material base on up through its superstructural effects and back down as to what impacts the superstructure has on the base. Marx does go a little bit more into financial capital in the Grundrisse, but even just what is in Capital is sufficient to extrapolate to see the current financialized form of capital through his lenses very clearly!
Behind every theory lies an underlying ethical system that shapes its purpose and objectives. This ethical framework is essential for understanding the ultimate direction and meaning of the theory as a whole. What is often missing in discussions of a theory's parts is a clear recognition of this broader goal. The key question, then, is: What is the ultimate aim behind each element of the theory, and what is the theory striving for in its entirety? What was the author ultimately trying to convey, and what are we, as readers or thinkers, ultimately seeking through these ideas?
Through this lens, we can also evaluate a theory in terms of its importance-or lack thereof-for us as rational beings. Above all, we must recognize that our highest good is a good will, and true happiness is found in aligning with this moral purpose. A theory that neglects this fundamental discussion fails to provide real meaning or relevance. Without grounding itself in this ethical consideration, the theory becomes disconnected from what truly matters for our rational nature and our pursuit of genuine well-being. In this way, understanding the ethical system behind a theory is not just about interpretation, but about assessing its value and significance in guiding us toward a meaningful, fulfilled life.
In fact, whenever we discuss any subject, there is implicitly an ethical system that shapes our understanding and discussion. Therefore, we must make explicit our ethical system (or that of a particular author) and show how it shapes our understanding (or the author’s) regarding something specific we are discussing. However, people often avoid this because they generally do not want to be confronted with their values. This, in turn, makes discussions very superficial. For what will we have gained from all of this when we go to the grave? Will spending time on such matters have been worthwhile? Or should we perhaps not think about this (whether it’s worth it or not)? As Socrates said: “An unexamined life is not worth living”. And the main thing we must examine is: What has been my ultimate end? And ought this truly be my ultimate end? And when examining a theory, our main question ought to be: Does this theory align with the ultimate end that I ought to aim for and pursue? The answer to this question, since we as human beings have the same ultimate end, shows us whether a given theory is suitable not only for us particularly, but also for our fellow creatures. That is, whether the theory as a whole, considering its parts from the perspective of the ethical system they are part of, should be accepted by us, or if only parts of it, not compromised by a corrupt ethical system, should be accepted. This discussion must take precedence, for only from that point will it make sense to evaluate a theory as a whole, and then its parts. That's how I see it.
The old theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity, the multiple theories that make up quantum mechanics, the theories of electrodynamics, etc: they were all of course influenced by the ideological makeup of the societies, but an ethical framing wasn't the reason why they existed. Instead, they existed because they were the most accurate means to describe the material world. Human society belongs to said world, and can also be described with similar scientific approaches.
@@Dsonsee These theories you mentioned are not about persons, their behavior, and the reasons for their behavior, nor do they propose anything that they should do based on any supposed fact being analyzed concerning that. I don't mean such theories. By 'every,' I meant 'every of a specific kind'.
The problem with the service sector is whether or not it is "productive". But productive for who? The capitalist? Or society and a greater good? The apologist conception of productive labour would say even the criminal is also productive because he births and justifies the criminal justice system, etc. While if the service sector could be automated, those employee's could develop themselves in other area's supposing there is a network or financial safeguard to replace their current employment. There are also the people who cannot or can only do certain things, and are hence relegated to the service sector. Overall, if a tangible product is not created, it is not "productive" _in general._ But productive for the capitalist is whether there is more return on the workers product of labour than invested in wages or cost of production. This is gone over in _"the results of the immediate process of production"_ and "theories of surplus value." The whole point is to relegate more time of production to the articles with highest degree of social utility.
Never really understood the point behind the "critique" regarding services. Does it really make a difference, whether a worker gets exploited when producing cars, iPhones or Chanel bags on machines owned by "big money", or whether their job is to take annoyed customer calls in call centers owned by "big money", for example?😂 There are several other points, where Marx can be criticized, e.g. the somewhat sociopathic reduction of all human striving to material motives, or the historical determinism, but this specific one strikes me as a very academic one.
Interesting and well-presented video. Surely one of main reasons why Marx seems outdated, is that the concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands, hasn't led to the working class becoming stronger.They were supposed to be the grave diggers of the capitalist system. On the contrary, as the capitalists accumulate more wealth to themselves, organised labour seems to be weaker than ever.
@@Theolinooo do you mean to imply, that this is because of his analysis of history as entirely deterministic & materialist? Ideals aren't thrown out entirely by Marx, merely the complexly arranged sociopolitical culture is where an idea is formalised. Which could've only come about because of those specific set of materially conditions & circumstance. Because that is just the pure logic of following a deterministic first principles view of the universe.
I would like to suggest an analysis of Marx's critique of religion. It would be beneficial (and even essential) to analyze an argument in favor of the existence of God, since Marx was an atheist (having become an apostate after initially being a professed Christian), and built his system upon atheism. I would suggest analyzing this passage from Kant: “Here it was shown that of all possible proofs, the one which affords us the most satisfaction is the argument that if we remove an original being, we at the same time remove the substratum of the possibility of all things. - But even this proof is not apodictically certain; for it cannot establish the objective necessity of an original being, but establishes only the subjective necessity of assuming such a being. But this proof can in no way be refuted, because it has its ground in the nature of human reason. For my reason makes it absolutely necessary for me to assume a being which is the ground of everything possible, because otherwise I would be unable to know what in general the possibility of something consists in... Even this much, however, is quite fortunate for us, since it removes every obstacle which might stand in the way of our assuming a being of all beings; indeed, if we can be convinced of such a being in some other way, we can believe in it firmly and unshakably. For even in the speculative use of reason, the highest being remains a faultless ideal, a concept which brings to a close and crowns the whole of human cognition”.
Folks have been trying to tear Marx apart for over a century, just like Darwin. They are so very afraid of different ideas; screams insecurity. I received some sidelong glances when I read Marx back in grad school. I think Marx made some interesting observations, although I do not agree that communism must develop from capitalism. Also, I don’t think the human animal is capable of true communism. People are just not wired that way. Anyway, thank you so much for your videos. I really dig your style.
One additional shortcoming/criticism that's worth mentioning is Marx's reliance on Labor Theory of Value. This theory establishes the basis for his understanding of surplus labor exploitation, but it has definitely fallen out of favor for most economists given its shaky foundations. I'm loving your videos, btw. 💚
LTV is required for Marxism to even function. Modern economics are based on idealist concepts instrumental in the extension & preservation of capitalism. Also to give academic legitimacy to it & it's supposed benefits & 'superiority'. Neoliberalism has brought us right back to the 1920s exactly like classical liberalism did before it. If only someone 175 years ago wrote extensively on why & how this happens?
I really appreciate these videos, also about Marx and what he really said. 👍 I think most people, who condemn Marx, haven't really read any of his works themselves and don't really distinguish between Marx writings and those political ideologies that came out of it later. ( I myself also haven't read any of Marx' original works yet to be honest, but by what I heard so far, I see him more as an observer, thinker and maybe critic of his time and of society. I think with many things he noticed and pointed out he was even correct. What some groups then made out of it politically or ideologically is a different story to me ... 😕
We read and critically discussed his works (esp. the Communist manifesto) in school in 90s West Germany (i.e. the western part of then recently reunified Germany). The TLDR which I remember is indeed he was a product of his time, with all the best of intentions, but he also actually wrote about how to transition to communism via a brief period of "benevolent socialist dictatorship" which (spoiler alert) didn't really turn out all that benevolent... so it was like "nice ideas, but maybe a bit too idealistic to gel with human nature, power abuse, etc." Didn't keep die-hard lefties from keeping to uncritically idealise his ideas AND approach, ofc, nor many 2020s social democrats from having a problematic relationship with modern-day Russia as former "socialist brother nation". Now add in the alt-right glorifying Russia for its actual structural conservatism and imperialism, and you have the perfect warning signs for the upcoming modern gulags - which shows you why I'm skeptical of any too far out ideology to this day. 😕
@@Marc42 Thanks for the reply and info. I went to school in Western Germany too, i just never read it in school back then ... And yes, I completely agree with you. ( I'm still influenced in my thinking by growing up in a social democrat family in the 1980'ties to be honest. And I still remember the times of the German Democratic Republic and people getting shot at the inner German border ... "Selbstschussanlagen" ... My mindset is definitely social, but democratic. Civil rights, human right, some personal freedom, our constitution, that's all very important to me. )
@@sino-wt7pu Brother how tf are you pointing out that people talk about Marx, making false claims about him and his ideas, WHILE talking about him, making false claims and admitting not to have read any of his texts 😭😭
@@Juli4n76 I've watched lots of documentaries and videos, including some about Marx and Marxism, but I haven't read his texts myself. So I have some 2nd hand impression. It's just not as complete as if I had studied his writings myself.
How dare you. Marxh studied all his lifecatnd was one of the greatt thinkers. You are atn ignorant grifter, with about 2 hrs of ed. His thought is for all time, you are a jumped up influencer
Thank you, Professor (and maybe future Ambassador?) Anne-Kathrin. Looking forward to more informative and insightful videos from the Literature Cafe in 2025!👏👏📖📖☕☕🥐🥐
i'll refute marx's basic theses right here: 1. most of human history(prehistory) has been a struggle against nature, not a struggle between classes. (class can only exist once there's an abundance of usable natural resources) 2. as long as humans are genetically different and are subject to growth and decay cycles there will always be a social hierarchy (children need parents, teens need teachers, young adults need mentors). competence disparity naturally results in social class difference. 3. alienation is the natural result of being a physical being in a world that requires physical work to produce that which is required for physical survival. changing your sociopolitical environment isn't going to solve your existential crisis. 4. there is no such thing as the collective or the collective good. the individual is the only real unit of humanity that has the capacity to think and act, and it will only do so on its own behalf. no one bakes a cake for the 'collective good' they do it so they can eat it or sell it and use the money to eat something else. (marx essentially replaced 'god' with 'society' which is also something that doesn't exist). religions created slaves that work for god to bring about heaven after death, marxism creates slaves that work for 'society' in order to bring about heaven before death. 5. 'value' is ultimately determined by many objective and subjective factors. marx totally ignores or discounts intellectual labor, yet without that physical work produces very little. vehicles are being made in factories by robots faster than a human being can bake a cake which means his metrics are vastly outdated. 6. a job is no the same as slavery. you're trading the value of your labor for the nominal value of money and then you're trading that money for the value of whatever commodity you purchase. at no point are you being used or treated unfairly. 7. wealth therefore does trickle down from the most competent members of society to the least, this is why we all have vehicles, appliances, computers, medicines, etc. we should be grateful that we can make smart people rich for making the things we're too stupid to produce on our own, instead of being jealous that they're rich because we hate the fact that we're too incompetent do take care of ourselves.
1. There is no such thing as natural history, only human history. 2. Hierarchy's are not classes. 3. Alienation is not natural, like when your girlfriend doesn't text you back, but in Marx's sense the capitalist's ownership of the workers product of labour and that separation. 4. Individuals don't exist. 5. Marx directly writes about "intellectual" products in _the Holy family._ 6. The wage system can be like slavery yes, hence the term wage-slavery. 7. The rich are not the most competent.
@@chhhhhris 1. marxism leads to prehistoric tribalism i.e. equal cavepeople barely surviving without class (because there's no wealth) 2. the stated intent of marxism is to do away with class hierarchy 3. alienation is as natural as your girlfriend dumping you because you no longer contribute to the relationship. everything in life is a transaction 4. lul 5. yes, intellectual products but not intellectual value. marxists don't want to admit that 'the rich' are just individuals that are a lot smarter than them 6. there is no wage system in a free market - you work and your boss pays you for it. you're not a slave, if you don't like it find another job or start your own business 7. yes they are. they're only rich because you purchase their products/services.
3 дні тому+1
Ha ha ha, you believe in trickle down theory and the competence of the rich? Get off your knees.
@@_xBrokenxDreamsx_ 1. China is the most advanced country thanks to Marxist insistence on developing the productive forces. 2. Class is not hierarchy 3. It's not my fault you're not smart enough to understand economic alienation. 5. The index of intelligence is not just whoever spends the most money on university education, the rich have no concept of manual labour, proletarians are more rich and valuable there, than property owners. You just have a deficient notion of "intelligence." 6. And when there's no other jobs? And when you can't start a business because the monopolies control the market? 7. The rich are rich because they own capital which the workers made for them by coercion out of threat of poverty.
@@chhhhhris 1.china was starving 60 years ago under mao and they've only developed because they opened themselves up to western markets 2. if class isn't hierarchy then what's a 'class struggle' and why was marx trying to abolish 'class'? 3. there is no economic alienation you can literally apply for any job you're capable of and can purchase literally any product on the planet 4. physical labor has no intrinsic value unless that labor results in a usable product or service (which requires intellectual design/organization) 5. when there's no other jobs you'll have to hunt and boil your own water, and you won't have a computer that a rich person made for you (you're admitting you'll be poor without intelligent people) there are no monopolies in a free market 6. the rich are rich because they produced a product or service that people bought. the person that creates a factory that produces a million cakes a year contributes more to society than the person that bakes a cake a day. capitalism is a market democracy.
exactly.. the entire 20th century is a refutation of marx's ideas. the first half of the century was riddled by starvation and war caused by collectivist ideology (socialism/communism) and the second half was dominated by free market capitalism which lifted hundreds of millions out of starvation and poverty. his ideas are basically childishly idealistic (that everyone can be equal)[you're not even equal to yourself throughout your own life] and lead to millions of untold tragedies.
All caps racist? Then why were they so adamantly opposed to slavery and colonialism? And why can't you at least read a biography? And why are you Dunning-Kruger exemplars so averse to actually learning? Try learning the difference between Classical Marxism from later variants such as Leninism. But I know you won't.
The service sector and advertising is analysed by Guy Debord who applies Marxist theory to mid 20th Century capitalism, specifically France in the 1960s.
The petit bourgeoisie that Marx talked about has just been extended beyond just small business owners. Sometimes described as the professional managerial class (a revisionist term, I admit), it exists of the bottom and middle managers, the university professors, human resources, psychologists. Basically those that do unproductive labor that have some position of authority over those that engage in productive labor (including software and financial packages, like you argued in this video) and then get some compensation (better incomes) for keeping the productive classes servile.
They believe themselves they exist to help those below them, when they too are the proletariat, for they engage in labor all the same. Owning a house, and even a small business does not make you a true part of the capitalist class. The true bourgeois hold enough capital that they don't have to engage in labor to accumulate wealth. This lack of class awareness forms the entire basis for class warfare. How to generate class awareness in this group, I have no clue (yet). The very nature of their work creates this air of superiority and elitism, for they went the university to learn how to uphold that control after all and surely must know better.
Again great video though, loving this entire series even though your title is very much leftists rage bait lol
In my experience, class solidarity comes from shared experience, like under Stalin. I don't necessarily have any solidarity for the self-described "working class" who make $100k per year, but I have a great deal for the homeless and for the extremely poor in general. This is because I slept in the same shelter (18 to a room, mats on the floor) and ate at the same packed soup kitchen as they did for 100 days.
Sometimes on the Internet, I hear people say things like "they won't learn class consciousness until they are starving", and things like that. But that's not true; communal living will do it.
Smug liberal exceptionalists like that are the worst. The Enlightened centrist type, that thinks they have this top down view over all of society. All of it's structures, 'laws', 'order' & 'rules'. Will also claim they are a "progressive", say jingoistic imperialist nonsense like"Israel has a right to defend itself" or "China bad, Russia bad, Iran bad". And some recent revisionist insanity like Ukraine is closer to EU culturally than Russia.
That's like me saying here in the North of Ireland, we are closer to EU/mainland Europe than we are to specific to our nearest geological & culturally neighbours of Britain. We are so close to the Gaelic British in Scotland genetically, culturally, linguistically to be somewhat indistinguishable to those unfamiliar with the differences. The Anglo Saxon less so but still very prominent. Now as much as I hate the Brits( Top 0.000000000001% for sure ) I'm not revising history with a lie that any child is able to spot.
I realy enjoy the aesthetics of this channel, thanks for the insights and hope the Algo catches a video or 2 of yours next year.
❤
I think adding subtitles where you can also highlight the technical terms might make it easier to follow (similar to what Unsolicited Advice is doing). Otherwise keep up the good work!
Thanks- I try it out if it works out for me :)
@literature.café you could do the same with sources for various arguments and counter-arguments. helps me building out my reading list haha
The service sector and advertising is analysed by Guy Debord who applies Marxist theory to mid 20th Century capitalism, specifically France in the 1960s.
Marx also discusses servants of the upper class as a service, yet a luxury service at that, in Capital vol I, pg. 574 Penguin edition/Fowkes translation.
Yeah and he says they dont have revolutionary potential
I wish all my friends were this smart... casually discussing philosophy and intelligent ideas. It's great!
perfect way to start the new year!
You are a very cogent and insightful educator!
What you say right at the end is very true, the analytical tools Marx provides are so broad and deep that contemporary Marxists and Marxian economists are able to adapt them to a view on modern financial capitalism very easily and describe that system better than prevailling economic theories very reliably.
I think one thing people forget is that the subtitle of Capital is "A Critique of Political Economy" and as such ANY formation or transformation of political economy (capitalist or otherwise) is able to be analyzed from the material base on up through its superstructural effects and back down as to what impacts the superstructure has on the base. Marx does go a little bit more into financial capital in the Grundrisse, but even just what is in Capital is sufficient to extrapolate to see the current financialized form of capital through his lenses very clearly!
Your accent is delightful. Another thoroughly enjoyable video, as always.
Marx has influenced my thinking greatly, always glad to see his methodology applied and discussed.
Behind every theory lies an underlying ethical system that shapes its purpose and objectives. This ethical framework is essential for understanding the ultimate direction and meaning of the theory as a whole. What is often missing in discussions of a theory's parts is a clear recognition of this broader goal. The key question, then, is: What is the ultimate aim behind each element of the theory, and what is the theory striving for in its entirety? What was the author ultimately trying to convey, and what are we, as readers or thinkers, ultimately seeking through these ideas?
Through this lens, we can also evaluate a theory in terms of its importance-or lack thereof-for us as rational beings. Above all, we must recognize that our highest good is a good will, and true happiness is found in aligning with this moral purpose. A theory that neglects this fundamental discussion fails to provide real meaning or relevance. Without grounding itself in this ethical consideration, the theory becomes disconnected from what truly matters for our rational nature and our pursuit of genuine well-being. In this way, understanding the ethical system behind a theory is not just about interpretation, but about assessing its value and significance in guiding us toward a meaningful, fulfilled life.
In fact, whenever we discuss any subject, there is implicitly an ethical system that shapes our understanding and discussion. Therefore, we must make explicit our ethical system (or that of a particular author) and show how it shapes our understanding (or the author’s) regarding something specific we are discussing. However, people often avoid this because they generally do not want to be confronted with their values. This, in turn, makes discussions very superficial. For what will we have gained from all of this when we go to the grave? Will spending time on such matters have been worthwhile? Or should we perhaps not think about this (whether it’s worth it or not)? As Socrates said: “An unexamined life is not worth living”. And the main thing we must examine is: What has been my ultimate end? And ought this truly be my ultimate end? And when examining a theory, our main question ought to be: Does this theory align with the ultimate end that I ought to aim for and pursue? The answer to this question, since we as human beings have the same ultimate end, shows us whether a given theory is suitable not only for us particularly, but also for our fellow creatures. That is, whether the theory as a whole, considering its parts from the perspective of the ethical system they are part of, should be accepted by us, or if only parts of it, not compromised by a corrupt ethical system, should be accepted.
This discussion must take precedence, for only from that point will it make sense to evaluate a theory as a whole, and then its parts. That's how I see it.
The old theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity, the multiple theories that make up quantum mechanics, the theories of electrodynamics, etc: they were all of course influenced by the ideological makeup of the societies, but an ethical framing wasn't the reason why they existed. Instead, they existed because they were the most accurate means to describe the material world.
Human society belongs to said world, and can also be described with similar scientific approaches.
@@Dsonsee These theories you mentioned are not about persons, their behavior, and the reasons for their behavior, nor do they propose anything that they should do based on any supposed fact being analyzed concerning that. I don't mean such theories. By 'every,' I meant 'every of a specific kind'.
The problem with the service sector is whether or not it is "productive". But productive for who? The capitalist? Or society and a greater good? The apologist conception of productive labour would say even the criminal is also productive because he births and justifies the criminal justice system, etc. While if the service sector could be automated, those employee's could develop themselves in other area's supposing there is a network or financial safeguard to replace their current employment. There are also the people who cannot or can only do certain things, and are hence relegated to the service sector. Overall, if a tangible product is not created, it is not "productive" _in general._ But productive for the capitalist is whether there is more return on the workers product of labour than invested in wages or cost of production. This is gone over in _"the results of the immediate process of production"_ and "theories of surplus value." The whole point is to relegate more time of production to the articles with highest degree of social utility.
Never really understood the point behind the "critique" regarding services. Does it really make a difference, whether a worker gets exploited when producing cars, iPhones or Chanel bags on machines owned by "big money", or whether their job is to take annoyed customer calls in call centers owned by "big money", for example?😂
There are several other points, where Marx can be criticized, e.g. the somewhat sociopathic reduction of all human striving to material motives, or the historical determinism, but this specific one strikes me as a very academic one.
Interesting and well-presented video. Surely one of main reasons why Marx seems outdated, is that the concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands, hasn't led to the working class becoming stronger.They were supposed to be the grave diggers of the capitalist system. On the contrary, as the capitalists accumulate more wealth to themselves, organised labour seems to be weaker than ever.
The historical dogmatism is truly the major flaw of his works.
@@Theolinooo do you mean to imply, that this is because of his analysis of history as entirely deterministic & materialist? Ideals aren't thrown out entirely by Marx, merely the complexly arranged sociopolitical culture is where an idea is formalised. Which could've only come about because of those specific set of materially conditions & circumstance. Because that is just the pure logic of following a deterministic first principles view of the universe.
happy new years anne cathrine 🎉🎉🎉🎉
Finally. The female Wolfgang M Schmitt.
I would like to suggest an analysis of Marx's critique of religion. It would be beneficial (and even essential) to analyze an argument in favor of the existence of God, since Marx was an atheist (having become an apostate after initially being a professed Christian), and built his system upon atheism. I would suggest analyzing this passage from Kant: “Here it was shown that of all possible proofs, the one which affords us the most satisfaction is the argument that if we remove an original being, we at the same time remove the substratum of the possibility of all things. - But even this proof is not apodictically certain; for it cannot establish the objective necessity of an original being, but establishes only the subjective necessity of assuming such a being. But this proof can in no way be refuted, because it has its ground in the nature of human reason. For my reason makes it absolutely necessary for me to assume a being which is the ground of everything possible, because otherwise I would be unable to know what in general the possibility of something consists in... Even this much, however, is quite fortunate for us, since it removes every obstacle which might stand in the way of our assuming a being of all beings; indeed, if we can be convinced of such a being in some other way, we can believe in it firmly and unshakably. For even in the speculative use of reason, the highest being remains a faultless ideal, a concept which brings to a close and crowns the whole of human cognition”.
🤣🤣🤣
@@nts4906 Do you have any arguments to present?
Irrelevant. There is no iteration of capitalism that doesn't sacrifice the poor majority.
Great analysis of Marxist theory. I love to have found this channel at the beginning of this year.
I'ma let you tell me about it.
Next do Marx' "On the jewish question"
Today, I got back to watch information about marxism. It seems to me denigrating that some people don't value the efforts, and works of others.
Folks have been trying to tear Marx apart for over a century, just like Darwin. They are so very afraid of different ideas; screams insecurity. I received some sidelong glances when I read Marx back in grad school. I think Marx made some interesting observations, although I do not agree that communism must develop from capitalism. Also, I don’t think the human animal is capable of true communism. People are just not wired that way. Anyway, thank you so much for your videos. I really dig your style.
One additional shortcoming/criticism that's worth mentioning is Marx's reliance on Labor Theory of Value. This theory establishes the basis for his understanding of surplus labor exploitation, but it has definitely fallen out of favor for most economists given its shaky foundations. I'm loving your videos, btw. 💚
LTV is required for Marxism to even function. Modern economics are based on idealist concepts instrumental in the extension & preservation of capitalism. Also to give academic legitimacy to it & it's supposed benefits & 'superiority'. Neoliberalism has brought us right back to the 1920s exactly like classical liberalism did before it. If only someone 175 years ago wrote extensively on why & how this happens?
Was Marx a worker?
Yes, he was. Nobody does that much writing, research, and political organizing without having done “work”.
Yes is the answer.
I really appreciate these videos, also about Marx and what he really said. 👍
I think most people, who condemn Marx, haven't really read any of his works themselves and don't really distinguish between Marx writings and those political ideologies that came out of it later. ( I myself also haven't read any of Marx' original works yet to be honest, but by what I heard so far, I see him more as an observer, thinker and maybe critic of his time and of society. I think with many things he noticed and pointed out he was even correct. What some groups then made out of it politically or ideologically is a different story to me ... 😕
We read and critically discussed his works (esp. the Communist manifesto) in school in 90s West Germany (i.e. the western part of then recently reunified Germany). The TLDR which I remember is indeed he was a product of his time, with all the best of intentions, but he also actually wrote about how to transition to communism via a brief period of "benevolent socialist dictatorship" which (spoiler alert) didn't really turn out all that benevolent... so it was like "nice ideas, but maybe a bit too idealistic to gel with human nature, power abuse, etc." Didn't keep die-hard lefties from keeping to uncritically idealise his ideas AND approach, ofc, nor many 2020s social democrats from having a problematic relationship with modern-day Russia as former "socialist brother nation". Now add in the alt-right glorifying Russia for its actual structural conservatism and imperialism, and you have the perfect warning signs for the upcoming modern gulags - which shows you why I'm skeptical of any too far out ideology to this day. 😕
@@Marc42 Thanks for the reply and info. I went to school in Western Germany too, i just never read it in school back then ... And yes, I completely agree with you.
( I'm still influenced in my thinking by growing up in a social democrat family in the 1980'ties to be honest. And I still remember the times of the German Democratic Republic and people getting shot at the inner German border ... "Selbstschussanlagen" ... My mindset is definitely social, but democratic. Civil rights, human right, some personal freedom, our constitution, that's all very important to me. )
@@sino-wt7pu Brother how tf are you pointing out that people talk about Marx, making false claims about him and his ideas, WHILE talking about him, making false claims and admitting not to have read any of his texts 😭😭
@@Juli4n76 I've watched lots of documentaries and videos, including some about Marx and Marxism, but I haven't read his texts myself. So I have some 2nd hand impression. It's just not as complete as if I had studied his writings myself.
@@sino-wt7pu didn‘t judge your analysis, just wanted to point out that your critique is somewhat hypocrtitical
How dare you. Marxh studied all his lifecatnd was one of the greatt thinkers. You are atn ignorant grifter, with about 2 hrs of ed. His thought is for all time, you are a jumped up influencer
😅
wtf
Thank you, Professor (and maybe future Ambassador?) Anne-Kathrin.
Looking forward to more informative and insightful videos from the Literature Cafe in 2025!👏👏📖📖☕☕🥐🥐
i'll refute marx's basic theses right here:
1. most of human history(prehistory) has been a struggle against nature, not a struggle between classes. (class can only exist once there's an abundance of usable natural resources)
2. as long as humans are genetically different and are subject to growth and decay cycles there will always be a social hierarchy (children need parents, teens need teachers, young adults need mentors). competence disparity naturally results in social class difference.
3. alienation is the natural result of being a physical being in a world that requires physical work to produce that which is required for physical survival. changing your sociopolitical environment isn't going to solve your existential crisis.
4. there is no such thing as the collective or the collective good. the individual is the only real unit of humanity that has the capacity to think and act, and it will only do so on its own behalf. no one bakes a cake for the 'collective good' they do it so they can eat it or sell it and use the money to eat something else. (marx essentially replaced 'god' with 'society' which is also something that doesn't exist). religions created slaves that work for god to bring about heaven after death, marxism creates slaves that work for 'society' in order to bring about heaven before death.
5. 'value' is ultimately determined by many objective and subjective factors. marx totally ignores or discounts intellectual labor, yet without that physical work produces very little. vehicles are being made in factories by robots faster than a human being can bake a cake which means his metrics are vastly outdated.
6. a job is no the same as slavery. you're trading the value of your labor for the nominal value of money and then you're trading that money for the value of whatever commodity you purchase. at no point are you being used or treated unfairly.
7. wealth therefore does trickle down from the most competent members of society to the least, this is why we all have vehicles, appliances, computers, medicines, etc. we should be grateful that we can make smart people rich for making the things we're too stupid to produce on our own, instead of being jealous that they're rich because we hate the fact that we're too incompetent do take care of ourselves.
1. There is no such thing as natural history, only human history. 2. Hierarchy's are not classes. 3. Alienation is not natural, like when your girlfriend doesn't text you back, but in Marx's sense the capitalist's ownership of the workers product of labour and that separation. 4. Individuals don't exist. 5. Marx directly writes about "intellectual" products in _the Holy family._ 6. The wage system can be like slavery yes, hence the term wage-slavery. 7. The rich are not the most competent.
@@chhhhhris 1. marxism leads to prehistoric tribalism i.e. equal cavepeople barely surviving without class (because there's no wealth) 2. the stated intent of marxism is to do away with class hierarchy 3. alienation is as natural as your girlfriend dumping you because you no longer contribute to the relationship. everything in life is a transaction 4. lul 5. yes, intellectual products but not intellectual value. marxists don't want to admit that 'the rich' are just individuals that are a lot smarter than them 6. there is no wage system in a free market - you work and your boss pays you for it. you're not a slave, if you don't like it find another job or start your own business 7. yes they are. they're only rich because you purchase their products/services.
Ha ha ha, you believe in trickle down theory and the competence of the rich? Get off your knees.
@@_xBrokenxDreamsx_ 1. China is the most advanced country thanks to Marxist insistence on developing the productive forces. 2. Class is not hierarchy 3. It's not my fault you're not smart enough to understand economic alienation. 5. The index of intelligence is not just whoever spends the most money on university education, the rich have no concept of manual labour, proletarians are more rich and valuable there, than property owners. You just have a deficient notion of "intelligence." 6. And when there's no other jobs? And when you can't start a business because the monopolies control the market? 7. The rich are rich because they own capital which the workers made for them by coercion out of threat of poverty.
@@chhhhhris 1.china was starving 60 years ago under mao and they've only developed because they opened themselves up to western markets 2. if class isn't hierarchy then what's a 'class struggle' and why was marx trying to abolish 'class'? 3. there is no economic alienation you can literally apply for any job you're capable of and can purchase literally any product on the planet 4. physical labor has no intrinsic value unless that labor results in a usable product or service (which requires intellectual design/organization) 5. when there's no other jobs you'll have to hunt and boil your own water, and you won't have a computer that a rich person made for you (you're admitting you'll be poor without intelligent people) there are no monopolies in a free market 6. the rich are rich because they produced a product or service that people bought. the person that creates a factory that produces a million cakes a year contributes more to society than the person that bakes a cake a day. capitalism is a market democracy.
Marx's philosophy has been the most murderous in history. Marx was a RACIST. Engles's was a racist. Defend them all you want.
Trolls are as ignorant as they are annoying and always self righteous. Just ignore these Jordan Peterson wannabes.
exactly.. the entire 20th century is a refutation of marx's ideas. the first half of the century was riddled by starvation and war caused by collectivist ideology (socialism/communism) and the second half was dominated by free market capitalism which lifted hundreds of millions out of starvation and poverty. his ideas are basically childishly idealistic (that everyone can be equal)[you're not even equal to yourself throughout your own life] and lead to millions of untold tragedies.
All caps racist? Then why were they so adamantly opposed to slavery and colonialism? And why can't
you at least read a biography? And why are you Dunning-Kruger exemplars so averse to actually learning? Try learning the difference between Classical Marxism from later variants such as Leninism.
But I know you won't.
The service sector and advertising is analysed by Guy Debord who applies Marxist theory to mid 20th Century capitalism, specifically France in the 1960s.
@@PatrickMandin-n3y You realize you are talking to upper-middle class 15 y/os who come from 4chan to troll people in comments, right?