Go to North Korea and try to get food. You won't like Marxism anymore. You'll see in the starvation and the horrors of centralized production what Karl Marx wanted. Karl Marx hated people.
@@Zilicon NK is a capitalistic economy where Kim is the only shareholder. If neoliberals think NK is socialist just because they call themselves that, might as well call them democratic XD.
When you describe it like that....I feel that the big businesses are creating modern day slaves. Paying you just enough to pay your bills. Greed is the problem....Renters are expendable. We have serious homelessness issue in California. Its gonna get worst...
I would agree on this. However, workers are letting big businesses create them to be slaves. 1) When's the last time you took a job and negotiated your salary? 2) When's the last time you put your previous salary on the application? 3) When's the last time you had a job and looked for another one with a higher salary? This is the problem with modern day society in capitalism. People aren't pinning employers against employers. I wish I could dive more into California but that is literally a sh*t storm. It is failing due to capitalism causing part of the problem but it's more so of red-tape and taxation. A good example would be Coeur d'alene, Idaho; It's the "New California". However, it is/was a very conservative state. People are all flocking there but once they move in, want more amenities (parks, roads, lights, etc etc). So those are built up and it attracts more people that want to purchase; which increase housing costs. Then developers come in to make multi-family homes to help with the population boom; which helps with affordable housing and a boost in great amenities (bus systems, plazas, high dense commercial). Then congestion starts to happen and we start to tax more (CDA, ID has 2x on property tax for any out-of-state residents) and put up heavy restrictions on building. Which drastically increases both the single family homes; as well as multi-family affordable. Things become unaffordable because building is grinded to a halt. Whereas housing demand is still high or even getting higher due to limited supply. Restrictions on building create a need for LARGE venture capitalists' to take the risk on building (I've heard like 5+ years of planning and development in California before even breaking ground). And that's just kind-of the downward spiral. Did anyone want this? No but it's a gradual virus that takes over.
Vermino I agree with all of that. Its a domino effect of inflation causing migrating to occur. The issue though with California, for example, is that inflation is happing at a rapid speed, while income remains the same. Not only that, there is more on you plate (tasks at work) now that there is less employees per office. A real issue happening, that needs to stop, is the power of investors. Investors from all over the world are buying US property, without even seeing the house. No limitations. Buying out homebuyers who actually live in the city. That has to change....
@@RyanBugatti well large corporations are the ones creating regulations in a free market. Pretty much stopping competition from happening (think hair stylist needing a license) on one point, it helps to make sure no one is going to mess up your hair but on another point and more crucially, it keeps competition low as it takes money + time to get a license. Which increases prices onto the consumer. So large corporations like the telephone network, social media, aerospace, etc etc. should be split up, as well as not be allowed lobbyists in bed with our politicians. I believe Trump as an economist has the right idea. (Rather of had Ross Perot - but we got Bill and George instead) to control inflation, we need to keep our production in america to build the value of our fiat dollar back up. I hate everytime we have a crisis, we run to the reserve to print more money. (Inflation is good; especially with a growing population and economy) but hyper inflation like we saw a few months back is going to have long lasting effects to the people as a whole. (Tax on savings) I agree with you on people will be the last to see the inflation in their income. Unless they are savvy and look at external markets to negotiate a higher salary. One thing I hate about capitalism is that with inflation, if an employee forgets to get a raise within a timeframe, they will be at a loss their entire career (if they stay with the same company). The good news is we dont have pensions anymore that make us a "donkey chasing the carrot" for 30 years. We have the ability now to not be loyal and push ourselves to get higher wages. But I do agree that we will see a collapse sooner or later. It doesn't matter what "ism" we do. I think of it has a bicycle, you can keep it on two wheels for however long you like but sooner or later it's going to hit the ground.
@@RyanBugatti btw, I was in heart of Seattle and moved to a small town close to spokane. Bought a house for $72/sqft vs seattle being $300+/sqft. My wife and I make more money than we do in the city. We lost out amenities but gained freedom of our time.
Duh. Universities want to squeeze all the money they can out of you. So many useless subjects are dragged out throughout the semester while making you think you're getting your money's worth. I remember having to do courses that I had already did in high school. Like why?
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Going to university shows you are willing to stay long term and show up everyday. Thus, making you a good slave for a corporation. We have unlimited access to knowledge in this modern day, you can teach YOURSELF to become anything.
Although my English is poor,I come here specially to say thank you. This video is very useful for me. Actually I never understand all kinds of -ism.For example,the capitalism. I need to learn the basic principles of Marxism because I’m going to take the postgraduate examinations this year. thank you again.I hope nobody will jump out and laugh at my English grammar…
You knew that trump is the Anti-Christ. The US and global economies are about to SUBMERGE. Neither of the establishments controlling the GOP and Democrats, nor the Trumps and Bidens among them, want real political party competition. They seek to retain their 2-party monopoly and keep sharing power 100% between them. US elections have NO effect on the FAILURE of capitalism. The failure: A select few make all the key decisions. These decisions determine the distribution of all wealth. The history of that distribution is based on politics. Who owns Washington ? The select few (majority share holders, the FED, the filthy rich directly shaped our government’s POLICY. the system is rigged, the seeds of racism are present. Risk is a move to the left. The most memorable pages in Das Kapital are the descriptive passages, culled from Parliamentary Blue Books, on the misery of the English working class. Marx believed that this misery would increase, while at the same time the monopoly of capital would become a fetter upon production until finally “the knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” The truth is the United States lost. What won was a constricted politics defined by the range between the GOP and Democrats, Trump and Biden. Voters chose between two similar fantasies differentiated by two names: a return to “greatness” vs a return to “normal.” How ironic that Trump’s greatness and Biden’s normal both name the recent history that drove the US to its current scary conditions. In the ever more hyped blame game that this election was, US politics truly became “the evil of two lessers.” Fundamental questions actually confront the US now. Is US capitalism in terminal decline amid China’s ascendance? How do we do better than capitalism as our economic system given its inequalities, instabilities, and gross failures to safeguard public health? How can we best undo capitalism’s environmental damage? What can really overcome the centuries of damage done to African-Americans and other indigenous and people of color via white supremacy? On such basic questions, this electih questions and the parties’ alternative answers to them become inescapable centerpieces of US politics and subject to democratic decisions.
@Ann Campbell you could do that under socialism or communism too. The difference would be that the surplus value created by the sale of those products to you wouldn't go to a CEO. It would go to the workers of the grocery store or farm.
@Ann Campbell side note: "corporatism" has another name. It's called late stage capitalism. Because it's inevitable under a system that prioritizes profits over people.
I have a test this morning about this topic and I've been studying for weeks in fact months without understanding a single thing but here you are with a simple video and everything become crystal clear.... thank you so much ! 🥰
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
The profiteers - the big, corporate firms that dominate the US economy - have gained greatly at workers’ expense, especially over the last 40 years. They installed technology that cost millions of jobs. They relocated production overseas where wages and other costs are lower. The combination of fewer jobs and more people looking for them kept wages from rising for a long time. Skilled, secure, and well-paid jobs gave way to low-skill, insecure, and poorly paid positions. Labor unions lost members and power. Meanwhile, the income of the top 5% - employers and their top executives - grew dramatically at everyone else’s expense. US capitalism redistributed wealth upwards, from the middle and the poor to the rich. Employers and the Republican Party together deprived unions of their former power. The Democratic Party proved unwilling or unable to protect labor’s interests; it kept promising but not delivering. Automation, outsourcing jobs, and shrinking union memberships and power produced workers’ mounting hardships, bitterness, and anger. Taking on mountains of debt (for mortgages, autos, credit cards and college educations) only worsened their hardships. Then US capitalism’s 2008 crash exposed how the richest used the government to bail themselves out and further deepen inequality. Employees saw the US becoming a small knot of the super-wealthy surrounded by a sea of economic pain. Some upset and angry workers voted for Trump in 2016. They wondered whether a Trump/GOP government would deliver on its promises to “make America great again” by reversing the long decline of its working class majority. By now it should be clear that Trump’s promises may be more, louder and extreme, but they too have been broken. Inequality has gotten worse, government failure to prepare for or contain Covid-19 is catastrophic, and managing capitalism’s 2020 crash is another gross exercise in unjust economics. The last 40 years show that expecting protection or support for labor’s economic well-being from Republicans or Democrats is a tragic mistake. Labor leaders writing protest op-eds in newspapers will not work. Making some protest remarks while endorsing yet another Democratic Party ticket just repeats past mistakes. US capitalism’s decline continues as competing economies rise (China, the European Union, the BRICS countries, and so on). The rich in the US use their wealth to grab and hold everything they can amidst decline. Without a changed strategy, working class conditions will be taken down with and by the system’s decline. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ What the working class can do is move into the streets to stop “business as usual” until steps are taken to reverse the last 40 years’ redistribution of wealth. Workers must also stop endorsing and voting for candidates who do not serve their interests. Nothing would better show workers’ seriousness about reversing the last 40 years than building a new labor-based political party to change US politics. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
@@jamesmorton7881 that's so dumb, you should look at prosperity and not income inequality, the standard of living is continuously going up because the big businesses are competing to give us amazing products at cheaper prices that better our lives and make it easier to live, there's a large income inequality between Bill Gates and Donald Trump, they are both rich, income inequality is not a bad thing inherently, if everyone's getting richer then it's a good thing
He forgot to mention people eating their own children in Bolshevik Russia during the food famine if the 1920s. As well as the pile of dead bodies that has amassed every single time this idea of fairy tale of unicorns and rainbows has been attempted. Learn to be happy with what you have and if you don't like it learn a skill that you can market and don't be making chairs your entire life.
The capitalism of his day was laissez-faire ie free market capitalism, which ended in the 1890s with the Sherman Antitrust Act and progressive taxes. What the vid doesn't mention is that a lot of his ideas are part of our present economy through Keynes' interpretation, as Keynes was a known socialist. Also it may have helped to mention that Marx was a popular business correspondent for the New York Daily Tribine, and received his PhD from an elite university.
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
@@tuberific454The Sherman Anti-Trust act was notorious for not being enforced much. It alone did not end the Gilded Age. Not even close. Also, Keynes wasn't a socialist in any sense of the word. He disagreed heavily with Marx. What does Marx going to university have to do with this video btw?
@@idontknow5249 My point was that a market ceases to be free once government takes an active and direct role in its affairs. So, while the Gilded Age did not end solely as a result of those policies, its so-called "free market" underpinnings were effectively redefined. Also, Keynes called himself a socialist, was actively engaged in socialist movements, and referred to his research as the "socialist project." While yes he did not outwardly align himself with Marx in particular, that doesn't mean he wasn't a socialist. Per ChatGPT, the so-called "mixed economies" ie the various iterations of social democracy including the US trace their roots to Marxist theory. Also, I reflexively mention Marx's credentials due to the broad misperceptions surrounding his background. In other words, it is not anyone's imagination that it is commonly repeated that Marx "was a business illiterate who inspired millions of deaths and failed economies." This of course from an academic perspective could not be further from the truth. Per ChatGPT, "Marxism is more aligned with western democracy and its principles of individual liberty than with Stalin's interpretation."
I support all of this EXCEPT that in reality, things go way different, for example in my country, workers TOOK THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION of an Airline company. All of the workers (pilots, airport staff, flight attendants, etc) starter working for themselves. They commisioned a directive and gave bigger salaries accross all workers. What happened 6 months later? THE AIRLINE WENT BANKRUPT. They couldn't make it work. That's what happens when people take the means of production: they are more focused on the paycheck they recieve at the end of the month, instead of trying to make the company work by spending less and producing more.
The revolution must be global (Trotsky said it). Even if you took the entire country industries in the hands of workers the industries of diferent products are better done in other contries (like gas in russia, coffee in brazil). One company ruled by workers cant survive in capitalist society alone, the capitalists dont do what they do because they want, but because they need to.
Have you lived in both systems? Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. At the moment I am writing this comment, there hasn't been a single country with this economic system
Just like you, I could say "I lived in both"... It would be a mistakr though. I've always lived in capitalism: first, State capitalism. The, private capitalism.
This is an excellent starter for people wanting to consider to understand the ideologies and philosophies of Carl Marx, and delve from it any perspective regardless of what kind of political philosophy they support. It is good to know and understand your own, an opposing, or adjacent perspective with a good clear definition of what it is trying to do, portray, and perceive on society. I feel like this is an excellent way to stir the mind to seek out further knowledge of the matter, even if there are some rebuttals to this ( and their may be rebuttals to those rebuttals, but I'm not sure on that matter personally.)
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Fucking based stuff mate. I'll be linking your video to anyone asking for the basics of Marxism. Also the cartoons are pretty cute. :) Keep up the good work! ✊🏾
workers could take a collective loan to purchase the ways of production and split the profits among themselves (a co-op business). Workers can do that under capitalism. In some countries you might even use the land and building as collateral for part of the loan to reduce your debt is the business fails. I wish workers got together to fund co-ops more often to set up an example.
The problem is that under capitalism, co-ops have a hard time with their business since the competition is with bosses who will do anything to get the most profits, like suppressing wages, extending working hours. Capitalism doesn't play fair
@@TheQueen-sw4th Spreading the profits fairly doesn't make you less competitive. The sum of every wage would still amount to the same cost. As for the empirical effectiveness of worker co-ops, they have similar productivity to single-owner businesses. Check this video. ua-cam.com/video/yZHYiz60R5Q/v-deo.html
@@caiomh7605 But the whole point is to make as much profits for the business as possible. Businessmen obviously give workers a fraction of the labour they produce. The competition is how much profits could you make. How low must you pay your workers to do so? But I'll check out the video
@@TheQueen-sw4th I'm talking about splitting the profits more evenly (with equity), not increasing wages. The final cost of labour is the same, meaning that the final price to the consumer wouldn't change. The difference is that one system concentrates the surplus with the owner/shareholders, while the other splits the surplus among the co-op members. Equity also increases productivity, because workers who are rewarded for the prosperity of the company are more productive than workers who have fixed wages.
As far as I know, this video was made possible through technology developed by capitalism. If I'm not mistaken. I'm honestly trying to understand why people dislike capitalism. I'm pretty sure that the alternative will result in utter depreciation of the human race. But it sounds great in theory.
You're thinking about it the wrong way. This video was made possible by the technology developed by engineers and workers. Linking it to capitalism is reductive and introduces an element of mystification. Marx outlined the errors and shortcomings of capitalism. Marxists and socialists view capitalism as a natural step in the evolution of human society, without attaching any dogma to it. On the other hand, capitalists and defenders of corporate interests mystify the system with concepts like 'the guiding hand of the free market,' 'risk-taking,' and 'human nature.' Yes, technologies have been developed within capitalist systems, but that doesn't justify upholding the status quo. In the past, reactionary defenders of feudalism used similar weak reasoning to defend serfdom: 'The societal order provided food and protection,' 'It was set by God,' or 'Who will sow the fields if social class orders are dismantled?' The same goes for defenders of slavery, who argued that it was in human nature and asked, 'Who will work and ensure human progress for so little?', ‘Slaves cannot rule themselves, the master-slave dynamic must be protected’.
@@gottod6895 There would be no competition or drive to make better products without the idea of capitalism. Workers would not compete against one another naturally just to make better stuff.
This is hands down the BEST video on UA-cam which describes the basics of Capitalist Production, why it contains the mathematical seeds of its own destruction and inevitably produces class conflict.
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
W (who) TF do you imagine was going to pay for trump's MASSIVE debt ? THe Rich ? The Russians ? The F_GOP ? The millions who LOST their jobs resulting from the botched COVID response ? your are your kids are your grand kids are American who pay taxes driving that train, out of cocaine trouble ahead trouble behind don't think, your losing your mind
No where in the manifesto does it say murder is wrong. Rethink your Ideology, or you could be the next victim. Cording to Marks if you make more money than I do I technically have the right to go murder your family steal your home? How much money do you make a year?
@@joedecker4227 what are you talking about? the communist manifesto is an economic theory book it’s not a book laying out laws about things like murder. you’re being ridiculous. and it’s not about people who just “make more money”. it’s about the top 1%, the big business CEOs, the absurdly wealthy, etc.
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
This is definitely a quality video that effectively summarizes how a Marxist thinks. We must also understand that it doesn’t fairly depict the capitalist’s view - nor does it claim to, so we don’t have to expect the video to do so. Good to keep all this in mind as we keep learning!
It’s fortunate that Marx’s predictions were completely incorrect. Wages have been increasing in inflation adjusted dollars for decades. Unless the world economic forum gets their way, everyone will still have private property, and won’t have to live in the pods, eat the bugs, and own nothing.
1.I can use a lot of the same logic to argue that we were enslaved by Nature 2. The video forgets that is much is corporations will compete with each other by undercutting each other in prices they will also compete for labor by offering better wages.
It seems that the main question is why is it we give the surplus value to the capitalist? Why does ownership of the means of production entitle him to it?
The only Capitalist defence as to why I've ever heard is along the lines of "well, he risked investing in those means of production to employ you". Apparently a risk taken once entitles one to rob you of large chunks of your wage for what can be the rest of his life, not to mention that workers risk many things under the capitalist and are not compensated for it.
Because laws are designed to favor the capitalist, and people have been propagandized into not believing in the concept of labor theft, that the money stolen through exploitation was actually earned fairly.
I think the surplus value is kinda like rent. If not, you would usually have to pay people to use their equipment. And since workers dont pay rent to use the means of production to create value, the surplus value is the rent you pay for using his machinery
They are presenting the capitalists doing nothing to obtain value. When was the last time you saw a successful capitalist like that? The concept is outdated at best
@@rationalism_communism Yeah, no, they don't. We live in a regime that high commitment returns high income. I like good quality of live for everybody, but better for those that have a higher goal.
cyka, коммунисты и сюда добрались, может сначала дашь людям туалетку и возможность посрать без видеокамеры в собственной квартиры (ах да, она же общая), или может возможность купить что-то кроме картошки не стоя 5 часов в очереди, а потом уже будешь про прогресс затирать?
@@john_lemon4205 В каком из советских туалетов видеокамера стояла? В СССР на 89 год только ~9 процентов проживало в коммуналках с общагами. Ну и большую часть истории СССР люди не стояли в многочасовых очередях за картоплей и т.д, иначе бы СССР 74 года не прожил.
Capitalists at the top are either entrepreneurs who have a lot of risk or investors who have to invest wisely or lose their money. It's because of this risk that they _sometimes_ become rich. Over 50% business fail within 10 years. That's a lot of risk of time, energy, and money. They don't just sit back and do nothing, that would increase the risk. So they get the surplus value, which often gets reinvested wisely into businesses that are more likely to succeed, grow, and create jobs that will last.
And that means they'll always have to expand ,go local, go national, go international than end up with a near monopoly that can afford to exploit without risks, maybe even use some surplus value to give to politicians so they protect the system you rely on for your profit, that you won't even ever need to live
@@dialectixemcee2428 I’m assuming you are talking about investors? If you’re talking about business owners, you clearly have no understanding of operating a business
This was mentioned in the video. It is reasonable for employees to own the means of production and allocate additional wealth for investment in expanding their “corporation”.
Great video Jimi! Just wondering...is this video based on the Communist Manifesto specifically or all of Marx's work as a whole? Also did you create the animations yourself?
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it! This video draws a little bit from Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital' volume 1, but it is mainly based on one of his pamphlets, titled "Wage Labor and Capital", which is much more accessible. It can be read here if you are interested: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm In my opinion, the Communist Manifesto is not a very thorough summary of Marxist ideology. It was written to motivate the working class to revolt, rather than to provide detailed economic analysis. It thus has a lot missing from it, which is why it is so widely critiqued. People who criticize Marxism based only on the Manifesto most often have no idea about what Marxism actually is.
@@JimiSol hello im debating a capitalist but their saying that not everything needs labour to be exchangable (labour theory of value). lets say I had a shiny rock but traded it. but their was no labour so not everything needs labour to be exchanged. How do i counter argument this? and something about a previously unavailable use-value. thanks COMRADE!
There are only two classes of people represented in this video and I fall into neither category. I assume I’m the type that is taken out back and shot. And those workers who revolted and stole the owners property which he risked much to acquire, they have become the useless eaters who now produce things that are no longer necessary and are also taken out back and shot. Wouldn’t it be better for them to work to promote their standing in life and acquire their own means as the capitalist? Try reading Thomas Sowel… nobody dies in any revolutions in his books.
I love it when people with extremist ideologies try to point out the problem with the extremists on the other side never realize you end up with the same problems - monopolies and economic inequality, for different reasons. Government monopoly bad but we can all see these Corporate monopolies are equally bad. Regulated Capitalism or Democratic Socialism have different names but the policies tend to lean towards strong Centrist governments. Not extremists. There are more than two options . Don’t let these idiots fool you
The true cost of production are not getting paid. Clean air is not free. Clean water is not free. Cheap labor has a hidden cost (government welfare). capitalist are stealing these items (not paying) to make even more profits A two class system is the end result. DEMOCRACY in the WORK PLACE. (labor has a real vested interest in the value added) capitalist, not so much ten yatchs ? twenty? does a CEO "EARN" 1000 time what you make ? OCTOBER 29, 2020 HEADLINES GDP GROWTH +30 % sound good, but it is not If you own a stock priced at $100 and it drops 30 percent, it is now worth $70. If it gains back 30 percent, it is then worth $91 (the gain is just $21 because 30 percent of 70 is 21). 100 BASELIN ------- 100--0 70 AFTER 30% DROP --- 70--DOWN 30% 91 AFTER 30% RISE-----91-- DOWN 9% 98 AFTER 40% RISE-----98-- DOWN 2% ( ( BASELINE -or+ NEW VALUE ) / BASELINE )( 100%) = % CHANGE PERCENTAGE BASELINE +/- NEW VALUE DIVIDED BY BASELINE TIMES 100% 100 DOWN TO 70 ( ( 100 - 70 ) / 100 )( 100%) = ( 30 / 100 ) ( 100 ) = 30% FALL 70 UP TO 100 ( ( 70 + 30 ) / 70 )( 100%) = ( 130 / 70 ) ( 100 ) = 185% RISE GIGANTIC % RISE TO RETURN TO START
What the working class of Chile learned in 1973 is that socialism has to be organically embedded at grassroots level - and that the military must be on board [which was not the case]. Much easier said than done - especially with the CIA actively supporting the capitalist counter-revolution. I think the experience of the Arab Spring proves the same point. Meanwhile, the fight goes on!
Social issues can never be solved by institutions that require power. Which is the reason why Socialism has never expanded the capacity of any society to date. OTOH Capitalism, Democracy and Science have indeed expanded the capacity of every Society they encounter. Your video on Worker-Owned Capital should have opened your eyes. As it includes the principle that only the person who benefits from a thing will look after it. Human nature above all - which was the core thesis of Adam Smith's two volume argument. To wit: empathy is natural and an open market is the correct place to exchange values. Which to date, has never been realised, as we still carry historical baggage like a open wound, e.g. religion, history, achieved ignorance.
Socialism is a bottom-up, democratic non-hierarchical system of organization. Unlike with capitalism, you don't have someone at the top with dictatorial powers that has extreme control over those underneath. Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production. The workers have sovereignty. There is no higher authority. That makes communities and citizens less depended upon the government as well as capitalist corporations.
@@michaelmappin1830 What you have described is Capitalism 101. The legacy need for strong government is mankind's Achilles heel. Presumably because humans are scared of fully robust and dynamic democracies so we stick with the proven architect of failure (see: Tytler Cycle). Adam Smith was writing about worker-ownership: which you would know if you had read both volumes in order, _Moral Sentiment_ then _Wealth of Nations,_ with an open mind. No Socialist system ever employed has avoided dictatorial interference. Reason: any loci of power retains its toxic effect on the human mind.
Surplus value does not exist. The wage is not “less than the exchange value that you produced” because again value is subjective. He values the labor more than the wage, while you value the wage more than the labor. You did not produce the chair, nor was the value differential between raw materials and finished goods due to your labor alone. It was your labor plus his capital. He isn’t taking surplus value. He is giving you your cut and he is getting his. You both contributed.
@@ExPwner What a disgusting lie this is. Anyone working at minimum wage would tell you that's not true. Also, before you even say "only high-school kids work minimum wage", why is McDonald's open during school hours?
If you want to own the means of production, wouldn’t you just start your own business? Why work for someone else, other than maybe some training? When working for someone else, I find that going the extra mile right off the bat strengthens your chances of advancing. Especially when there’s whiners around constantly complaining why that can’t advance. You know who’s being exploited? The little brown kids mining the lithium and cobalt for all the fancy electronics we use to complain about capitalism.
"You know who’s being exploited? The little brown kids mining the lithium and cobalt for all the fancy electronics we use to complain about capitalism." - yes, they are. What's your point? They are exploited by capitalism,. for the benefit of capitalism. The fact that people in western countries are _less_ exploited doesn't mean they're not exploited. The 'start your own business' argument is so silly. I hear it all the time. It's hardly a universalisable solution to the general problem of exploitation, is it? You couldn't run a modern industrial society on the back of 43 million sole traders (to take my own country as an example). We need collective and complex organisational structures. What we don't need is for those structures to be mini dictatorships.
So i agree that competition leads to lower prices, but im not sure that it leads to oversupply. Owners can control their supply of goods. That didnt make sense to me. Also, if prices and wages drop proportionately why would folks not be able to afford those goods?
competion not just lower goods price,indeed it also lower your labor salary,money more dont means you are rich,indeed everytime when gov print money,1USD in your hands will be as half useful as past
The surplus value theory is subjective nonsense. Trucks are very expensive to operate in the transportation industry. IF* drivers seize the private property of the those who own the trucks through bloody violent revolution, i.e., theft, they are going to be in for a rude awakening on the cost to maintain and operate that truck. Being paid upon the agreed terms of exchange of value isn’t exploitation. You are free to take your labor elsewhere where or buy your own truck. But stealing someone’s private property is reprehensible, and clearly is immoral. Buy your own truck and find out the hard way. With risk comes rewards. This is why owners deserve everything they risk in order to be successful! And socialism has never created wealth, only capitalism has. Socialism only redistributes wealth created by capitalists. Hyper-productivity is the only option that must be achieved in order to match the material gains of capitalism, in order to meet everyone’s means to have your communist utopia. But how can hyper-productivity ever be achieved in a socialist utopia without capitalism? It is impossible! Eradicating capitalism is killing the goose which lays the golden eggs! Errant marxism is pure foolishness!
@@afgor1088 , not if you arbitrarily give all the profits the truck makes to the driver? Meaning over pay him above his wage, and give him the profits, then there’s nothing left for the owner for his risk or even cover the expenses? And how do you justify “theft” of someone’s private property, since the truck didn’t just fall from the sky?
Neoliberal austrian marginalism is subjective nonsense. The Labor Theory of Value is science, an intuition in Adam Smith's time that has since been supported by data.
@@rsavage-r2v , trucks don’t fall from the sky? They are costly to buy, they take fuel, parts, insurance, and the licensing? If you arbitrarily give more profits to the driver, then the business owner who owns the truck loses money. The value of labor theory is just subjective nonsense by irrational marxists who don’t know what they are talking about.
@@Italian097 The basis of neoliberalism is literally called the 'subjective' or 'marginalist' theory of value. Find some articles on marginalism and austrian economics and see for yourself. Except it's not a theory because it's not falsifiable, unlike the labor theory of value which predicts the actual state of the economy. Look at economist Paul Cockshott's "Why the labor theory of value is right" on UA-cam. LTV is not a moral statement, it's simply an observation about the objective requirements for producing commodities. In the same way Adam Smith shows that impersonal forces will set the "natural price of labour" at the minimum wage required to keep workers from starving to death and enable them to give birth to more workers. He's describing a mechanism, not saying what they 'deserve'. And, just to reiterate, the LTV is not specifically marxist. It is present throughout 18th and 19th century liberal economics (John Stuart Mill, all the rest). If we attribute it to anyone, we should call it Adam Smith's Labor Theory of Value. That's from the days when 'capitalism' meant factories, unlike our modern era from Reagan and Thatcher forward where 'capitalism' means wealthy usurers and absentee landlords instead of real jobs.
If everyone takes what they produce, they how will society even work? I can just produce more and thus take more, which basically means that everyone must produce what they consume, so everyone is basically responsible for themselves, which will lead inevitably to famines and problems. This system needs reform, no one that isnt a capitalist can deny that, but the complete abolishment of capitalism doesn't work, as we have seen countless times in history
You don't need capitalism to have markets, businesses, people selling and trading things, innovation, production, etc. None of those things are unique to capitalism. You do not need to have rich people accumulating wealth from capital. That doesn't make things better, it makes them worse. Capitalism is the economic system of parasites. It has nothing to do with work, it's about accumulating wealth through Capital without doing work. And that comes at other people's expense.
@@jared1964 how is it theft if he does pay the person doing the labor? The capitalist risked alot more to create the means of production, the laborer simple got hired and works. The laborer can simply get another job if the capitalists means of production fails to create value.
@@rezneps He did none of the work and you're making up a fantasy scenario where he took risk. One where LLCs and bankruptcy law is not written by capitalists.
Workers can take some risk and start their own business and keep all the profits for themselves. It is so simple and is practically guaranteed. No small business ever went under and cost the owner heart ache and financial loss. Funny though…workers still get paid. I mean, why work 8 hrs a day as an employee 5 days a week when you could work 15hrs a day 7 days a week and still risk the whole thing not working out?
..just ideas, people falling for just ideas, do you want to know how it turns out? Look a history and what is currently going on in the world. If you have a personal problem with how it all works, that's not necessarily my problem.
rexamaine the whole capitalist / government / worker economy thing We can doe better than capitalism. Share the wealth, we all have to eat If not , your few remaining workers just may not come in to work screw us and we screw you no jobs = no spending = lower profits (we have to live on the small value placed on labor) 1930s crash coming soon, FED has no more amo, Just pray the dollar can stand up. Millions have no job. US labor costs have been stripped to the bone for the last 40 years. FLAT WAGE GROWTH The history of income DISTRIBUTION has always been political. The rich make all the rules. salary taxes laws laws enforced transparency accountability health insurance educational opportunity
@@jamesmorton7881 so the people own everything but the government controls everything, so crony capitalism just finds a new medium in the government and people like me are shut out of any opportunity to be anything but a laborer who works for the government for free... kinda sounds like nationalized slave labor to me
@Geoffrey Campbell you just described capitalism twice. The beautiful free market you envision in the first example leads inevitably to the second example as firms tend towards monopoly and exert their power on governments to continue shoring up their margins.
When a business has a few bad months losing money, do the “Workers who own the means of production” have to write the company a check those days they show up for work? Where did your furniture building stick man get the raw materials, utilities, factory space, advertising, legal council, accountant, government compliance officer, HR department, tools and customers? I missed the part of your video that suggested “all the costs of running a business are absorbed by the capitalist and all the profits go to the workers.”
Wow!. Tough subject explained as simply as possible. I needed that, "surplus value", "private property", etc. Thank you! Something that stirkes me is, what about the means of production getting cheaper as well? What if it continues to get more affordable to make your own stuff. Coops slowly take over faceless corporations as people strive for responsibility, etc. Private property stays but becomes less central in our lives as health/quality of life takes over.
Things marxists economics ingore (by now it's just lies): - It never tells you where the means of production actually came from. If you ask, they will tell you it's probably inheritance (like that doesn't mean someone actually had to work to aquire them in the beginning, anyway). - It lies about the proletarian not being able to buy anything else except the every day subsistence consumables. Most business owners are people who started working as an employee, learned the profession, saved money and bought the means of production for his own bussiness - It lies about the "capitalist" not working at all. Most bussiness owners work 24/7. Literally. Forget about family or friends. The bussiness owner has the biggest responsabilities in the industry. If something goes wrong, he still have to pay the wages even if it's from his own pocket. And his lifetime savings are at risk if the bussiness doesn't work - It lies with the idea of classes. Anyone can become a bussiness owner (yes, the proletarian too). Even if you don't have the capital you can look for someone to finance your idea or just get a bankloan. If you think it's risky and hard work, yeah, that's what bussiness owners face every day - Prices are set by the market, not the bussiness owner nor one buyer. If the job the "proletarian" does is needed and hard to master, the "capitalist" can't lower your wage because he can't get anyone to do your job. It's a lie that the capitalists never lower his income. Actually, the bussiness profit is the most variable income in the whole industry, because he doesn't have a salary, he just gets the profit that sometimes might be even negative - So, when did actually happen that the means of production are no longer profitable and the capitalists has to sell them worldwide?. - So it's inmoral to buy a worker's service with a wage if he agrees but it's perfectly ok to steal the means of production from someone what worked all their life to get them? - So once you steal the means of production, who is going to be the director of the industry?. As soon as you ask yourself this question you will realise how hard the bussiness owner actually work. And here is another question. Who is actually going to create any bussiness if he will get his investings stolen?. This ideas where all stupid already back in the day. But today are just plain lies that anyone can see just by thinking about how the market and any industry works. It's just a lie that politicans tell to get violent power from people who doesn't want to admit any responsability on their condition and want to blame others for their problems. You will not get anywhere with this kind of thought. It's just pathetic
1. Primitive Accumulation 2. Those are Petty Bourgeoisies, not Bourgeoisies. A Petty Bourgeoisie cannot become a Bourgeoisie with his own money. 3. Working ≠ working for commodity production. Laborators work for commodity production, and Bourgeoisies work for regulating production. However, the "work" of regulating production comes with power of domination of labor, which is the true point that Marxism demonstrates. 4. The power mentioned above is called the Capitalist. Capitalist is not money, it's power. So even if someone get a bank loan or investments, he didn't become a Bourgeoisie because essentially he do still not own the power. As mentioned above, he's just a Petty Bourgeoisies though. 5. Prices are set by the market with Nash Equilibrium, and the Nash Equilibrium is acheved by the Perfect Competition between every bussiness owners and every buyers. 6. The Great Depression 7. Primitive Accumulation had always been immoral. Social movements never considers moral. Is it moral that Louis XVI got beheaded? Is it moral that Robert Cromwell abolish the thrones of British Royal? 8. You have already given me the answer -- Hiring, but business man as employees and workers as employers.
@@BalthildIresYume Thanks for awnsering, since most of this things are never pointed out by marxists. However, it doesn't seems logical mostly because Marx didn't saw technology comming, that's why all his theory doesn't apply to nowadays. I'll try to bring this to reality instead of theory, because I don't think debate can come to anything if we just name authorities and don't explain how things actually work, sadly, this will make my awnser really long. 1) Primitive Accumulation as I understand in marxist views means the massive capital that was once made from things like slavery, colonization, etc, and as it grew it was inherited by following generations leading to nowadays "great capitalist" that no longer work and just sit tight and watch their fortune grow, right?. There are some critiques to that point of view: A) it's veracity and B) does this work good for the world and C) what to do about it?. A) If you watch the top 1% of the richest people on earth you will see that in the span of one decade all the names changes and not for sons and daughters but for new bussiness people. Some of them didn't even have a dime in their youth, as I can cite some examples we all know as Gates, Jobs, Bezos and Zuckerberg. So how come they are not always the same families?. Also, what happens if the owners of such capital take bad decisions, as we have seen throughout history. They go broke. And if they keep taking good decisions, that means they are giving the consumers what they wan't at a competent level, so isn't that a good thing? (that's what I meant with work in B)). C) The marxist awnser was one of the bloodiest disasters in human history, so I wouldn't rush to change it for the first idea that comes by 2) Petty Burgeoises: So to find common ground, you do believe that a proletarian can turn into a "petty bourgeoisies". Do millionaires enter the cathegory of this petty bourgeoisies? Because there is a great distance between a few millions and being the "all rulling capitalist" that marxism critizeses. If you say yes, then are you saying that the proletarian can turn into a millionare? even if it's just a few millions, it doesn't sound that bad. If you say that the proletarian can't turn into a millionaire then we all know that's a lie. I don't even need to mention the Gates, Jobs, Bezos or Zuckerberg here, so I guess you wouldn't deny that a proletarian can turn into a millionaire. As I said before, that doesn't sound bad. I guess the marxist critique is that at some point you need the "all rulling capitalists" to give you capital to grow, and in such exchange, they are exploiting you with the Primitive Accumulation that they just inherit so they don't even work and are still in power forever... but that is not how it works. First of all, most of the richest people's parents or grandparents werent even rich, as the people I mention before. Second, when the great capitalists give capital they are investing. Investing can go wrong if you don't study the opportunity (wich is actually a really hard work and takes a lot of knowledge and still you're only reducing the risk, not eliminating it). That's how the richest people go broke. And third, if I have a few millions (or less in the case that doesn't qualify as petty burgeoisies) and you give me capital wich gives me the oportunity to become a millionare (even beyond a few millions)... it's hard to see that as a scam, it looks more like a mutual benefit, wich is actually what the market is about. 3) Not sure if understanding your point, but I guess you mean that mostly, the marxist critique focus on commodities as in "the owner of the mine/field doesn't do anything and exploits the worker to get massive income as the worker gets a really low income" leaving outside of the critique pretty much the rest of the market wich is massive and keeps growing. But there are a few problems even with the commodities analisis. A) A lot of the comodities changes, for example, lithium/uranium wasn't useful in the 7th century, so if someone buys a lithium mine get the chances are the money doesn't come from Primitive Accumulation, someone that actually make his way from proletarian to millionaire as I explained in the point 2) can buy a lithium mine. People also where poor and found oil/uranium in their own field. B) The owner of the field/mine, even if it does come from Primitive Accumulation, still has to obey the market laws. He will have competence that will take him out if he doesn't administrate properly, reduce his income and gets the best human capital. So it's not just power, there are natural laws to it. C) The commodities worker still doesn't just get "barely enough to eat". That's just a 1800's view, as most marxist views. They actually get paid pretty well, mostly because to work in a field/mine you have to learn to use machinery at least, wich is not something anyone can offer and that allows the worker to ask for more. D) Even in capitalism it could be understanded that commodities, or means of production that comes from natural resources as fields, mines, sea, etc should pay big taxes, because they are exploiting natural resources that belong to a country, wich of course the state should use to provide the rest of the people, so there is a fair share of socialism for such markets, even in capitalism. That's something I would agree to apply 4) So this pretty much explains my questions in the 2) point. You would say that a proletarian can turn into a lower tier millionare (or Petty Bourgeoisies) by a loan or financiation. What stops him from keep growing to aquire a massive fortune and actually becoming a bourgeoisies and finance other people too. The rich people I mention before sure don't classify as Petty Bourgeoises (maybe because to be one you also have to own commodity production, and that's not that people's bussiness is about) and still those people went from lower class to massive wealth. Also, what's so bad about being a petty burgeoisies?. And even if you don't conform with the petty part, I would like the idea to go from lower millionare to massive wealth through external financiation 5) Isn't the concept of Perfect Competition what I mentioned in my point?. Isn't that good? 6) Primitive Accumulation is inmoral, as every socialists experiment ever tried, and inmorality breads failure and misery. But I would say that Primitive Accumulation is almost non-existing in today's market, as I sayd in 1). 7) A bussiness ruled by the workers is a bussiness model within capitalism, it's called cooperative bussiness (I'm not sure how it's called in english). It exists, but it's pretty much a bad idea since it's decisions are based on ad populum, the guy that cleans the toilets doesn't understand how to manage the bussiness so his vote is useless. Also, if the workers soon finds out that they don't have a salary and their income fluctuates when the bussiness isn't doing good, wich is what happens to the bussiness owner in the other model of bussiness. And if some of the workers are not good or fucks it up everyone pays for it. Also this is something that can happen inside capitalism, but when everything in a country takes this model, who is going to create new industries, and what's even less conceivable, who is going to innovate into new bussiness?
You've clearly never bothered to answer any of these questions yourself. You're just throwing a bunch of objections out there, most of which are strawmen, and hoping that they stick to some gullible person reading this. You can't get around the basic point that people are getting paid less than the value of their work, and no capitalist would hire any worker if that wasn't the case, doesn't matter what other distractions you can bring up about how often they see their families or whatever, the worker sees their families a lot less and lives a much worse life or else again, no one would want to be a capitalist. That and capitalism has created absolute misery which is really the main point aside from any philosophical moral issues with it.
@@curseanalyst First of all, these things are mostly pointed out by Marx/Engels/Lenin. Marx do see technology evolving too, yet he had already pointed out the decisive role of productivity progress. 1. The primitive accumulation is the answer of your assertion that "It never tells you where the means of production actually came from." Do not get off-topic. A. The analysis object is class, a faction in the society as a whole, not the individuals in the class. No matter how many times those individuals was replaced, the class ruling the society and controlling the labor of production does not change overall. B. Hangmans of the Tsar, generals of the Nazi, dealers of the African slave trading... they're also a kind of "work". If you think getting incomes by these "work" is just, right and fair... then I have nothing to say. C. It's not. Let me cite Mark Twains' comment on the French Revolution: > THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror-that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves. 2. You have totally disregarded the point. I've emphasized in the lase reply many times: the Capital is NOT MONEY, it is POWER. The relationship between money and power has described in [Das Kapital] (Specifically, in Vol.2 Part.2 [The Turnover of Capital]). Imagine what you're saying if you replace the subjects in your sentences to "King", "authoritarian", etc. -- you're like saying if anyone comes form the people could be a minister and rule the state (selected by extremely strict conditions with pitiful chance), then the state is democracy, regardless whether the domination of the monarch and ministers obeys the will of the people. And you even say it's "mutual benefit", just because rulers have given some chance to the people. Ancient China actually have a system abovementioned, however, it's still a kind of dictatorship. I remember there have been someone (maybe a feminist?) that proposed a term "Structural Contradiction" to criticize such arguments. The conflict is determined by the structure of the society, not specific individuals. 3. No. I was not saying "Bourgeoisies do not work". I was saying the division of work between two classes leads to the domination of one class to another. Actually, I agree that Bourgeoisies works hard too. However, the Bourbon family and the Tsars also works hard too, aren't they? Moreover, the relations between Bourgeoisie class and specific Bourgeoisies has been described in section 1.A. 4. See section 2. 5. It sounds good, but only sounds good. I have had think you know the concept of Nash Equilibrium, so I don't explain it -- it's not a thing as good as you first look. Nash Equilibrium may leads to disastrous consequences, for example, bad money drives out good money. When the sellers (Laborators) are much more than buyers (Bourgeoisies), says, when there're numbers of unemployed, the equilibrium is greatly benefit to buyers, and buyers de facto. take control over the market. Therefore, Marx hove already concluded that if Bourgeoisies want to keep their position, they must maintain the rate of population reproduction at a level that keeps at least half of the unemployed in the society (in [Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844]), and this is done though the state machine. 6. See section 1.C. Today's market are also immoral if you must view it from a moral aspect, only that its immoral spreads out over the time and so that it's hard to noticed, but when you sum them, you could see it's much more immoral than what Soviet states did. -- But again, it's meaningless to talk about moral on social movements, otherwise the Europe should still dictated by monarchs, and the America should still be a colony of Britain. 7. It's called the collective ownership in Socialism. It's bad only when it exists inside a Capitalism society. In fact, it runs well in a Socialism society. For example, the Angang Constitution is one of the most excellent instance of collective ownership factories (of course, only before the Chinese government turns to revisionism at 1977). This system cannot run well under Capitalism, because of the Nash Equilibrium.
Two critiques, 1. You show the capitalist lounging, I'd suggest business owners are often doing specialized labor that only a small percentage of people can do (e.g. accounting, analysis, negotiations, etc). Furthermore, if the means of production are seized, whoever ends up performing this work will likely want a bigger slice of the pie given the fact that few of their peers can do the specialized work. 2. The end state you describe (right before the communist revolution) of production grinding to a halt is avoided in capitalism when there is not excessive friction (e.g. corruption) in the system. Won't the capitalist still want to buy things with his excess capital after the plant closing? Won't this employ people, who in turn employ others... Not going to say much more than that given this is just a comment. Well made video though! I'm not a big fan of capitalism, but communism seems to have produced arguably worse results the majority of times it has been implemented.
The most successful workers are the ones who create new means of production (like mobile phones). They are called "greedy capitalists" by state rulers, who bribe people to get elected. Their forced redistribution reduces the means of production available, while putting money in their own pockets. See how these rulers treat those who seek freedom: ua-cam.com/video/sO-n-fqcV70/v-deo.html
@@JimiSol I think worker-owned cooperatives can work under certain constraints. New Harmony was a failure, but the leadership structure wasn't the best. Voluntary cooperation is key, and there are many examples of this.
i support markets OVER capitalism. capitalism is the consolidation of control over property used for productive purposes (that is capital) at the expense of the actual market, especially in the form of corporate entities. however, marxism even in THEORY is beyond idiotic to put it mildly, and even worse in practice
@@Elmerhere Yeah I'm glad somebody has finally replied to this after such a long time. Don't get me wrong. What you've said is just considered to be the fact by me. I didn't ask that question in the comment section to express any kind of favor of Marxism. It's just that I've seen a lot of people, university professors, students and citizens from some commie dictator country, with leftie ideology using theories explained in this video to support Marxism.
I believe Marxism provides a useful method of economic analysis. I don't agree with everything Marx says, but I think there are a lot of helpful insights. How about you? Do you see any value in the Marxist worldview?
Do it and you’ll come to understand how almost every aspect of our lives is affected by our capitalist conditioning. (From our family life to our work life)
@@Astro.98 I've read the communist manifesto. Pretty interesting read and I think marx and engels have accurate diagnosis but their solutions are borderline dumb especially with what we know about human nature. Basically what you would predict would happen with their solutions has happened every time. A lot of people say "communism is a good idea that hasn't been implemented correctly" when in reality it's a stupid system that has worked as expected every time.
555salt human nature is what the conditions of society make it. Primitive humans originally lived in communes where all provided for each other, communism.
Instead of doing that, acquire a skill that is demanded by today's market, it will help you a lot more than feeling depressed at why your country is not a communist one.
"in order for something to be valueble for trade, it must be useful" WRONG. What use do things like accesoirs or a football have? They arent useful for anything. You might enjoy them or like them, but they have absolute no use in themselfs, yet they are valueble tradable items.
The overview assumes the capitalist makes a profit (surplus). There is nothing inevitable about that. He could just as easily make a loss. Profits are thus the private property of the capitalist as they bare the risk of loss, not borne by labor. The capitalist must also delay his gratification from profit because he can only bag the surplus after labour has been compensated. Basic accounting equations, folks. Marx's model also understated the importance of the capitalists innovation, organisation and initiative. Without it labour would have nowhere to receive compensation for its services. If, as shown in the video, you say they can do the work themselves without the capitalist, well then what are they waiting for? Simply proceed without the exploitative capitalist. I know the video is decidedly simplistic to fit everything into under 9 minutes but where does the capitalist get his means of production from? The overview makes it seem as if he just happens to have these means. That wages are beaten down as production efficiency rises is not true. Labour is compensated according to its productivity. Logically then as productivity rises due to efficiency labour becomes more valuable. Empirical test: where are all the states that applied Marxism today? Hows their program working out?
This is a good discussion point, one of many about the importance of liberty of capitalism. Kind of shocking that this clever animation is easily portraying Marxism as a beneficial method to adopt. Very biased perspective of Marxism.
No, he could not. He would simply lower the wages or shift his capital into another venture. The idea that capital does anything useful or necessary in society is laughable
As a baby leftist this video is extremely helpful as I find reading Marx quite hard to understand at times! Great information and I’ve got an answer and clear understanding of all of my questions :)
@@PCFLSZ Supporting small businesses means supporting a larger number of businesses which means supporting a larger percentage of people in the capitalist class which also means improved mobility from the worker class into the capitalist class, and less profit per individual capitalist. The concept may be the same but the numbers get better.
Private Property itself is the tool of exploitation, when it's the worker who doesn't share in the surplus. Privatisation of the property is the privatisation of the surplus. If there is no exclusive surplus, there is no private property as defined.
Do we live in different timelines where wages go down? Wages have always gone up, and cost of goods down, oh and you talk about competition in selling, but not competition in gaining employees. When your worldview has to ignore reality, it's not very good.
The individual is the means of production. Every individual has the ability to trade or donate their time to the market aka other people. If an individual is able to acquire a surplus after a voluntary trade has taken place then that individual will be able to accumulate the surplus. The individual is free to consume or invest their accumulated surplus aka their wealth. If they invest wisely then they will become more efficient and have more leverage, thus making it easier to create more surplus and so on and so on.
This video captures some of Marx's points but also his spin. Notice how the provider of labour is painted as in some way at a disadvantage because the position of the owner of means of production is not discussed in the same way. We are told how the worker needs to the capitalist, but not how the capitalist needs the worker. But of course the owner of means of production also needs to person who provides (skilled) labour. The two depend on each other and there is no inherent basis of one to have the upper hand. In the video, the capitalist always smokes a cigar, wears a top hat, and has smug tone of voice. Really? Nobody does that at work in the UK. It's a ridiculous caricature. Then we are told that the capitalist pays the worker only a small amount relative to the exchange value of the good. Really? Surely the finished item made by the worker does not have the exchange value it will have later once it has been marketed, transported, sold, and paid for. Somehow, in this video, the worker does not get enough to save from month to month (which is not the case for many people who sell their labour today) yet the capitalist accumulates (which also is not always the case since many business backers find they lose a ton of money while their employees walk away from the failed business and into another job). Then the capitalist is depicted as not working. Really? Even people who live entirely by investing money in companies have to do at least something to decide what to do with their money. People who literally do nothing but live off their wealth today are extremely rare individuals. This again is an unfair presentation of modern economies that use markets and have business backers using shares as part of their system. After that, the video gets increasingly ridiculous and I'm not sure how close to Marx it is.
You don't think the capitalist has an upper hand? Are you out of your mind? 😃 you obviously don't have a very good understanding of how capitalism works.
@@michaelmappin1830 Shareholders can have a good negotiating position in some cases, but weak in others. You have to look across the whole range to understand that neither side has an inherent overall advantage. We need to cooperate. We are, by nature, a cooperative species. Marx's presentation of the situation was not entirely accurate at the time and is much less relevant today. The UK, for example, with its social market economy, is not much like the system Marx so resented.
@@matthewleitch1 , dude, you are completely out of your mind. Why do you think it is people unionize? What happened to the United States when the capitalist class succeeded in destroying most of the Union? United States is like number one when it comes to First World countries in regards to low-income workers. Most of the population can't afford a family on a single income and works from check to check. And because now all most of the wealth that used to go to workers is now going to the owners of capital at the top of the Apex, the richest 1% have almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American populations. Before the pandemic the United States was number 27 on the social Mobility index. With every passing day we can produce more more with less and less labour. Workers have to compete with one another in order to get the remaining jobs. Especially jobs that pay decent and have benefits. The owners of capital have massive over the working class. And when the workers do try to go on strike, the government calls when they Central workers or declares the service essential. And then, just like in the days of Rockefeller, Carnegie, JPMorgan, the cops get called in with their billy clubs to put you in your place.
@@michaelmappin1830 The modern economic system used in the UK, where I live, is substantially different from the historical examples you list and so they are not directly relevant. Union membership in the UK has been declining steadily since the 1970s and is significant now only in the public sector and for private sector industries that are heavily subsidized. Most people unhappy with their jobs just look for another one. The major trade unions have to work hard to stoke resentment and gain members because their services are less valuable today. Clearly, a single very wealthy person has more power in the world than a single not wealthy person, typically. However, collectively things are more balanced. A wealthy person still cannot get much done without the cooperation of others. It is also often the case (but not always) that what wealthy people want to do is good for just about everyone. That may be a major reason why the individual has become wealthy. And remember that differences in wealth are far larger, but less important, than differences in real resource consumption. If you want someone to resent, consider the UK's royal family. They do very little that is really useful and yet have exclusive use of a large number of enormous houses, plus cars, etc, and a huge amount of effort is needed all the time for their security. In contrast, business investors that do fundamental analysis, make long term investments, and support companies we really need are doing a very useful job and, if they don't consume more than they need, are doing it on very generous terms.
CEOs and Investors (owners) aren't the same thing. (i don't see one but still) even if CEOs work more than workers, how much they work more than them?? Is it more enough to be calling the income disparity justice? I don't think so.
Here's the simplest way I can explain it. How much harder do you possibly think they are working? 1.5 times? Twice? Hell ten times? IF that were true (keep in mind I'm not currently debating if they do or not), they should be making proportionally more. Twice as much compensation for twice as much labour. But as it turns out, modern capitalist economics do not support this model, and this is super easy to prove. Think about it, if every worker was equally compensated for their work, there would be no jobs more sought after than others, people would just choose the best fit for them. Lots of people want to be CEOs, but if their income was fixed to the actual labour they put in, how many still would? Workaholics, control freaks, creatives maybe, but the majority would switch their focus as they'd miss out on the unequal proportion of earnings given to CEOs. If all jobs were compensated equally for the amount of work put in, people would choose jobs best suited for their life, and there would be significantly less demand for jobs which are typically unfairly compensated for. Now, I don't personally agree that CEOs work just as hard, having worked predominantly in small offices were the CEO was everyone's boss and seeing how rarely they do even the minimum job requirements without board pressure, but regardless of my opinion, they're not possibly working so hard that the difference in earnings between CEO and their lowest paid employee, and thus are earning more than their fair share at the expense of their workers: exploitation. As for owners, that’s... not a job title. It's not a job, you can be an owner but that title isn't a job title as it implies no labour. Shareholders are owners, at most they go to a meeting and vote occasionally, not a job. Sometimes the CEO is the owner, their job is to be CEO. Simply owning part of a company does not imply the input of any labour and therefore does not warrant (on its own) any income.
Enjoying and learning... I wonder if the struggle I went out at univ to understand that stuff helped in some way or another. One hing I'm sure of: count me a loyal subscriber. Thanks for your presentation.
was hoping that this video wasn't going to misunderstand and conveniently "leave out" fundamentals of capitalism (but it does), and extremely disappointed that you honestly think Marxism economics is the solution... this is really sad, especially to see so many people in the comments who are as ignorant as yourself and believe this is a viable way forward.. please read more books on other economic ideologies, and perhaps, in the process, your common sense will prevail
What fundamentals of capitalism does it leave out? Why isn't Marxism the solution? Why isn't this a viable way forward? As it stands, your comment is a nothingburger.
@@DrZhivago-l2b I'll answer your question. Capitalism for one gives any person the opportunity to prosper with deduction and capital for starting a business. Example you save 10k working for someone then turn around with the money you saved to start your own business, you are the only person working that business for years. You are getting old so you start hiring people to work the business with you and the money you've been making off that business that you've worked by yourself for years, you turn that money into investing it into the business because you knew you wanted to expand when you get older. So everything you've worked for you've put into that business, now you stay hiring people to work for you and your company is expanding. Would you want to share all your profits with your workers if they didn't help you establish the business plan the work into the business like you, the business falls on your shoulders and the workers don't have that burden. Marxism will never work. If I started a business from scratch and worked that business for years and I have a family and kids, I'm leaving the business to my kids, why should the workers who invested no money no hardship get to split the business and get the business, doesn't make sense does it.
@@DrZhivago-l2b Marxist want all the profit but do not want to take any risk. Marxist also fail to understand the value of vision, drive, understanding complex systems, etc.
Most serious marxists are quite familiar with Smith, Friedman and everyone in between. The objections raised by neoliberal ideologues (Hayek, Mises, Friedman) are intellectually lazy and usually mystical and unfalsifiable, and have been rigorously addressed in marxist studies. Classical economics was pretty good up through Ricardo, and marxists refer to it often and in detail. Check out Michael Hudson on UA-cam for an example of this.
Owning the means of production: You should try to get something valuable that the owner of the means of production doesn’t have. Plus there are other people with that means meaning that if those people want to make money they have to make competitive deals. Under a communist framework no matter who has the means of production it’s really owned by the government.
As far as labor makes things valuable. Things must have an inherent worth or use such as shoes (protecting our feet) and they must not be readily available for free (like air). Now as much as it would be awesome to get shoes for free, they take labor to make. The more high quality the shoe the more labor. We do not consider your crayon drawings valuable because not only did they not take labor but they are have inherent use value. (They are not fun to look at) if you put more labor into them (providing you have some drawing ability) they would have worth. But you have to also remember that there aren’t a million of your drawings. And there a rent because it takes time for you to make them. Labor doesn’t always make something valuable. Putting labor I useful things does. And in a capitalist system people have no other option but to trade things that they have for that useful thing you made. There is no reward for putting high amounts of labor into things in a communist system.
So the gist of it is that private ownership of the means of production leads to competition, which drives down prices, which simultaneously leads to overproduction and a decrease in wages, which in turn makes the workers unable to afford the products they produced, which makes capitalists unabel to make a profit and in turn makes them lay off workers and close down factories, so you have a mass of products, factories and potential workforce that goes to waste?
Great question! But Marxist’s wouldn’t want that! I recommend reading about who Karl Marx was as a person, the bolsheviks (he was part of), and how disgusting his theories make people and places. Also the look up the Frankfurt school in Berlin where these theories began to develop and spread.
The problem is that marxists carefully study liberal and neoliberal works, but pro-capitalist ideologues do not do the reverse -- they simply praise the powerful and invent fairytales while, for example, the cycle of overproduction described in this video continues to create a crisis approximately every seven years.
Thank you for the video. Question about what you said at the 3:33 mark…it seems that your comments are predicated on the presupposition that the person who is making the chair works FOR the person who provided them the means of production. Is it not possible that the person who is using the means of production to make the chair can just simply start their own business and be the one who profits from the sale of the chair? Why is it assumed in your video that the person controlling the means of production is also the one who owns the company who is producing the product? I can go to a lumber store (the owners of the means of production), buy lumber from them, and then build a chair. Even though the lumber store controlled the means of production, the lumber store does not profit at all from what I made. It seems like this video does not take into account that people can start their own business, purchase the means of production or rent the means of production from someone who has them, and then go start their own business and have complete control over the profit of what they produced. The people that control the means of production often are just suppliers of materials. They don’t care who they sell the means of production to. If someone takes the risk to set up a business, they go out and and invest in the equipment and hire people to work the means of production, and sell the produced product, why shouldn’t they enjoy the profit? They are the ones taking all the risk. If product doesn’t sell, they are the ones who are ruined…not the workers. They just move on to the next company and continue to get paid and buy their means of subsistence. Also, how did the capitalist in your explanation come into possession of the means of production (equipment) and the materials (wood, steel, etc.)? They weren’t born with them. They had to work, save money, and then choose to risk all of it by buying the equipment, the materials, and then paying workers to work the means and materials of production by starting a company. To my knowledge, aren’t we all allowed to do that? Am I misunderstanding what you’re trying to say?
Have you ever owned a business? The cost of production is high. Cost of operations is high. Cost for fair wages are also high. Business owners have to work just as hard. I agree that big corporations could have a cap in order to sustain fair wages( if their net income is high) but to adapt a complete Marxist economy would not work. There is too much missing from this animation. You also have the right to look for what wage fits your needs. With hard work you can also own your business as well.
You’re talking to kids, they haven’t done anything yet. Socialists have always targeted youth, intellectuals, and minorities to spark revolution. The issue is there will always be have and have-not groups. We are tribal creatures, so... world peace is not possible. The great thing about capitalism, is that it literally ushered in the age of prosperity, but it does have downfalls. These downfalls were what Marx saw, and he said would cause the downfall of capitalism. History has proven him wrong several times because he did not consider an additional player, the state. We can have a functioning capitalist society, with social programs to protect the masses. Example: Sweden is a capitalist economy with strong emphasis on social protection and benefits. We can not have a functional society with communism because it requires central power to enforce the rules. Example: all socialist country’s. The thing is, it’s about balance. The liberal mind is high in openness, but low in conscientiousness. They make great entrepreneurs, but are horrible managers. The conservative mind is high in conscientiousness, but low in openness. They use information and experience to process order, but are rarely good an innovation. Liberals have used conservatives for decades to identify risks to their innovation. When I say liberal, I don’t mean progressive. Progressives are against any collaboration.
Andrew Koy - you are completely right they do take advantage of our youth. I’m a bit bummed I didn’t catch it, thank you! I agree, every system has its flaws, some more than others. In the states we are capitalist and have adapted semi socialist programs. I can see that maybe adapting a few more policies like Sweden and keeping an open mind could help today’s economy. You bring up several good points and worth looking into.
If you’re owning a business and working at the same time you’re part of the petit bourgeoisie (little capitalist). That means you are susceptible to being outbid by larger monopoly corporations, and will return to being a proletariat.
"You also have the right to look for what wage fits your needs." That's dubious.. there's some difference, depending your capability, location, and place in society, that may only be within a range of subsistence wages, and... marginally higher/lower subsistence wages. With hard work, you're still only getting subsistence wages, and not able to save your way out of it.
@@Koitus36 Not talking to a kid here; I'm in my 30s. In the US, Progressive policy is so poorly represented that social protections barely exist, and are most often hobbled by being underfunded deliberately, or having loopholes for exploitation to make an example out of them. 40% of the population here is fighting over a combined 0.3% of the total national wealth, and servile to any job they can get.. if you want to call that prosperous, I'd beg to differ; I call that serfdom. Any who misses 3 days of food is a revolutionary in the making. One blown tire, medical expense, even a higher than average electric bill, and it can all fall apart. Many jobs offer wages that still cannot pay for basic subsistence (Walmart for example, which if you're in a small town with no college, might be the best option), and still qualify the worker for food stamps.. yet we cut food stamps.. all in spite of these companies making record profit and productivity margins. Still, people call for lowering regulations on these businesses, and cutting social programs. With this stark disparity in quality of life, and tonedeaf social Darwinist fascination for squeezing the poor harder, the system creates it's own radicalization by being so sociopathic and shameless in it's greed. For anyone below the middle to upper middle class, and hopelessly stuck there, it's a very different world.. one that seem in every respect, indistinguishable from chattel slavery. Unless you get a lucky break, or cut some serious legal corners (which many eventually do,) your life is coerced into desperately accepting whatever any company you can find, says it is. At that point, knowing you have Zero bargaining power, it's in the company's best interests, to keep you like that.
His ideas are stupid you can be entprunur not a worker and get richer in Communist nobody owns nothing as individual and have no Freedom only be a worker on Gulag
Folks, lets also talk about how the capitalist can not only decide he wants to lower his wages but he can use all the profits he made off worker surplus value to now buy out all of his competition so that there is no one in the area to compete with, allowing him to raise his prices and make an even larger profit while continuing to pay workers close to nothing. This is how you get corporate monopolies!
The concept of surplus value is in its core is wrong mainly because of the fact that Marxists are confusing labor with value. Let me explain… The workers are given the tools and instructions to build the product. (Ex. A chair) The worker is not going to implement a massage mechanism in the chair or even wings so that the chair can fly. 😂 In other words, the worker is not increasing the value of the product. (Chair) The worker is only making the product which in itself already has value determined by the supply and demand in the economical market. The amount of money that is attributed to the worker is determined by the PRE-EXISTING VALUE of the service that he is providing (building the product). Which is determined by other independent factors such as (how many ppl are able to perform that service, how many ppl are willing to perform that service, how much money are they willing to receive for that service, etc…) The person who actually has to invest the money into the capital and the PRE-EXISTING service value that the workers are providing, is the OWNER of the means of production. (The capitalist). And his job ( yes, he actually is a worker as well ) is to determine weather the invested value (workers, tools, land etc…) is lower than the cash inflow value (money going to the business). In order to make a profit. (AND YES, THOSE VALUES ARE INDEPENDENT FROM EACH OTHER) But that is not as easy as it sounds, the owner has to more or less guess the value of the product based on some inaccurate market studies. Which is risky ( the greater the risk the greater the profit). And it’s only fair and moral that the person who holds the risk gets the profit.
Its not dogma, it’s revolutionary propaganda, deliberately engineered to generate hate among the lower classes and produce ‘revolutionaries’. The whole thing is built upon his ‘surplus value’….which he derives by hatefully omitting the contributions of the owning/managing classes to production. Its extraordinarily nasty stuff that we all need to be aware of and fight nonstop
A few things: 1) Who pays for the maintenance and initial capital for [means of production] and [private property]; if not the capitalist? 2) Is the worker going to hold part of his/her wage or surplus value after they sell their use-value? 3) How will the worker advertiser his/her use-value to generate means of subsistence? 4) What happens when two workers are creating the same use-value? wouldn't that start to cut into their wage or surplus value? 5) What happens when the worker's use-value becomes obsolete. Ie: the product they produce isn't worth anything anymore
So if the worker owns the means of production then there is no need for manufacturing. Each can make their own. But who produces the means? In the case of automobiles. Each builds their own? Who designs the car and how are they compensated? The world can't run on trade alone and there is no drive for innovation. Even if the workers own the means by owning the plant. Someone then owns the substance. Also in the case of bankruptcy who carries the burden of debt? The more you work the details the more you create a capitalist.
@@bminecreeper the whole basic premise is they get the money. Not the owner or CEO or "boss". However if all the people or workers owned the means to produce their needs there would be no production. As they needed they would make. They would not need to constantly make. If it's a good that they know how to make but others would need then they would become a capitalist.
Some of you are forgetting that the food, shelter, and other goods that you get from a communist economy would have lower quality than in a country with a capitalist country because no matter how hard you work in a communist country, you get the same amount of food, shelter, and other goods. While in a capitalist country you could do more work for more food, shelter, and other goods, or do less work for less. Capitalism rewards hard work and higher IQ, while communism treats everyone as if they were the same basic robot workers with the same basic needs. However, this video did a great explanation.
@lil Chungus But capitalism brings people out poverty. It helps lower the costs for consumers by competition. ua-cam.com/video/M6y0EfFJpFg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=LearnLiberty
@Cheems comamder it also drives companies to compete with each other to make more efficient ways of production, which causes new inventions and technology to be made.
@@djongheleo9297 if only there were several examples throughout history of how communism provided the Utopia, instead of the several that all demonstrate its propensity to cause massive death and eventual failure. But you, of course, know better and have figured out how to do it properly this time.
@@karlm8411 when has ever capitalism caused a utopia ? For all i know cuba has the embargo on it and yet it somehow is the best country to live in from the Caribbean
0:32 okay, the formation of that hammer and sickle was pretty clever.
Go to North Korea
and try to get food.
You won't like Marxism anymore.
You'll see in the starvation
and the horrors of centralized production
what Karl Marx wanted.
Karl Marx hated people.
@@TomiDeLuna Since when did Karl Marx hated people?? Source???
@@thatnhoxiu PragerU
@@TomiDeLuna
Karl Marx defined communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society. North Korea isn’t communist.
@@Zilicon NK is a capitalistic economy where Kim is the only shareholder. If neoliberals think NK is socialist just because they call themselves that, might as well call them democratic XD.
When you describe it like that....I feel that the big businesses are creating modern day slaves. Paying you just enough to pay your bills. Greed is the problem....Renters are expendable. We have serious homelessness issue in California. Its gonna get worst...
I would agree on this. However, workers are letting big businesses create them to be slaves.
1) When's the last time you took a job and negotiated your salary?
2) When's the last time you put your previous salary on the application?
3) When's the last time you had a job and looked for another one with a higher salary?
This is the problem with modern day society in capitalism. People aren't pinning employers against employers.
I wish I could dive more into California but that is literally a sh*t storm. It is failing due to capitalism causing part of the problem but it's more so of red-tape and taxation. A good example would be Coeur d'alene, Idaho; It's the "New California". However, it is/was a very conservative state. People are all flocking there but once they move in, want more amenities (parks, roads, lights, etc etc). So those are built up and it attracts more people that want to purchase; which increase housing costs.
Then developers come in to make multi-family homes to help with the population boom; which helps with affordable housing and a boost in great amenities (bus systems, plazas, high dense commercial).
Then congestion starts to happen and we start to tax more (CDA, ID has 2x on property tax for any out-of-state residents) and put up heavy restrictions on building. Which drastically increases both the single family homes; as well as multi-family affordable. Things become unaffordable because building is grinded to a halt. Whereas housing demand is still high or even getting higher due to limited supply. Restrictions on building create a need for LARGE venture capitalists' to take the risk on building (I've heard like 5+ years of planning and development in California before even breaking ground).
And that's just kind-of the downward spiral. Did anyone want this? No but it's a gradual virus that takes over.
Vermino I agree with all of that. Its a domino effect of inflation causing migrating to occur. The issue though with California, for example, is that inflation is happing at a rapid speed, while income remains the same. Not only that, there is more on you plate (tasks at work) now that there is less employees per office. A real issue happening, that needs to stop, is the power of investors. Investors from all over the world are buying US property, without even seeing the house. No limitations. Buying out homebuyers who actually live in the city. That has to change....
Vermino If we keep this up, we will have 10% of the world’s population riding jet skis on a marina, and the other 90% living in tents.
@@RyanBugatti well large corporations are the ones creating regulations in a free market. Pretty much stopping competition from happening (think hair stylist needing a license) on one point, it helps to make sure no one is going to mess up your hair but on another point and more crucially, it keeps competition low as it takes money + time to get a license. Which increases prices onto the consumer. So large corporations like the telephone network, social media, aerospace, etc etc. should be split up, as well as not be allowed lobbyists in bed with our politicians.
I believe Trump as an economist has the right idea. (Rather of had Ross Perot - but we got Bill and George instead) to control inflation, we need to keep our production in america to build the value of our fiat dollar back up.
I hate everytime we have a crisis, we run to the reserve to print more money. (Inflation is good; especially with a growing population and economy) but hyper inflation like we saw a few months back is going to have long lasting effects to the people as a whole. (Tax on savings)
I agree with you on people will be the last to see the inflation in their income. Unless they are savvy and look at external markets to negotiate a higher salary.
One thing I hate about capitalism is that with inflation, if an employee forgets to get a raise within a timeframe, they will be at a loss their entire career (if they stay with the same company).
The good news is we dont have pensions anymore that make us a "donkey chasing the carrot" for 30 years. We have the ability now to not be loyal and push ourselves to get higher wages.
But I do agree that we will see a collapse sooner or later. It doesn't matter what "ism" we do. I think of it has a bicycle, you can keep it on two wheels for however long you like but sooner or later it's going to hit the ground.
@@RyanBugatti btw, I was in heart of Seattle and moved to a small town close to spokane. Bought a house for $72/sqft vs seattle being $300+/sqft. My wife and I make more money than we do in the city. We lost out amenities but gained freedom of our time.
I learnt more in an 8 minute video than a whole semester at uni!
Duh. Universities want to squeeze all the money they can out of you. So many useless subjects are dragged out throughout the semester while making you think you're getting your money's worth. I remember having to do courses that I had already did in high school. Like why?
😅😅😅
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Going to university shows you are willing to stay long term and show up everyday. Thus, making you a good slave for a corporation.
We have unlimited access to knowledge in this modern day, you can teach YOURSELF to become anything.
Actually nobody will learn any objective truth from this video, it's overloaded with mindless bias and abject ignorance.
Although my English is poor,I come here specially to say thank you. This video is very useful for me. Actually I never understand all kinds of -ism.For example,the capitalism. I need to learn the basic principles of Marxism because I’m going to take the postgraduate examinations this year. thank you again.I hope nobody will jump out and laugh at my English grammar…
Don’t worry your English is good
You knew that trump is the Anti-Christ.
The US and global economies are about to SUBMERGE.
Neither of the establishments controlling the GOP and Democrats, nor the Trumps and Bidens among them,
want real political party competition. They seek to retain their 2-party monopoly and keep sharing power 100% between them.
US elections have NO effect on the FAILURE of capitalism.
The failure: A select few make all the key decisions.
These decisions determine the distribution of all wealth.
The history of that distribution is based on politics.
Who owns Washington ? The select few
(majority share holders, the FED, the filthy rich
directly shaped our government’s POLICY.
the system is rigged, the seeds of racism are present.
Risk is a move to the left.
The most memorable pages in Das Kapital are the descriptive passages, culled from Parliamentary Blue Books, on the misery of the English working class.
Marx believed that this misery would increase, while at the same time the monopoly of capital would become a fetter upon production
until finally “the knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”
The truth is the United States lost. What won was a constricted politics defined by the range between the GOP and Democrats, Trump and Biden.
Voters chose between two similar fantasies differentiated by two names: a return to “greatness” vs a return to “normal.”
How ironic that Trump’s greatness and Biden’s normal both name the recent history that drove the US to its
current scary conditions. In the ever more hyped blame game that this election was, US politics truly became
“the evil of two lessers.” Fundamental questions actually confront the US now. Is US capitalism in terminal decline
amid China’s ascendance? How do we do better than capitalism as our economic system given its inequalities,
instabilities, and gross failures to safeguard public health? How can we best undo capitalism’s environmental damage?
What can really overcome the centuries of damage done to African-Americans and other indigenous and people of color
via white supremacy? On such basic questions, this electih questions and the parties’ alternative answers to
them become inescapable centerpieces of US politics and subject to democratic decisions.
@@jamesmorton7881 So basically; Seize the means of production? Based and breadpilled
@Ann Campbell you could do that under socialism or communism too. The difference would be that the surplus value created by the sale of those products to you wouldn't go to a CEO. It would go to the workers of the grocery store or farm.
@Ann Campbell side note: "corporatism" has another name. It's called late stage capitalism. Because it's inevitable under a system that prioritizes profits over people.
I have a test this morning about this topic and I've been studying for weeks in fact months without understanding a single thing but here you are with a simple video and everything become crystal clear.... thank you so much ! 🥰
How did you do on the test?
@@Zilicon probably not bad.
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
"We don't trade for air because it's everywhere"
Nobody:
Capitalist: That sounds like a stupendous idea...
It's supply and demand, this video is so stupid
Ralph _ no joke.
I laughed my ass off when he said it’s because air doesn’t take labor.
@@ohwell6364 yeah lol I love this video, if this is the best communists can get then it's great😂
The profiteers - the big, corporate firms that dominate the US economy - have gained
greatly at workers’ expense, especially over the last 40 years. They installed technology
that cost millions of jobs. They relocated production overseas where wages and other costs
are lower. The combination of fewer jobs and more people looking for them kept wages
from rising for a long time. Skilled, secure, and well-paid jobs gave way to low-skill, insecure,
and poorly paid positions. Labor unions lost members and power.
Meanwhile, the income of the top 5% - employers and their top executives - grew
dramatically at everyone else’s expense. US capitalism redistributed wealth upwards, from
the middle and the poor to the rich. Employers and the Republican Party together deprived
unions of their former power. The Democratic Party proved unwilling or unable to protect
labor’s interests; it kept promising but not delivering.
Automation, outsourcing jobs, and shrinking union memberships and power produced workers’
mounting hardships, bitterness, and anger. Taking on mountains of debt (for mortgages, autos,
credit cards and college educations) only worsened their hardships. Then US capitalism’s 2008
crash exposed how the richest used the government to bail themselves out and further deepen
inequality. Employees saw the US becoming a small knot of the super-wealthy surrounded by a
sea of economic pain.
Some upset and angry workers voted for Trump in 2016. They wondered whether a Trump/GOP
government would deliver on its promises to “make America great again” by reversing the long decline
of its working class majority. By now it should be clear that Trump’s promises may be more, louder
and extreme, but they too have been broken. Inequality has gotten worse, government failure to prepare
for or contain Covid-19 is catastrophic, and managing capitalism’s 2020 crash is another gross exercise
in unjust economics.
The last 40 years show that expecting protection or support for labor’s economic well-being from
Republicans or Democrats is a tragic mistake. Labor leaders writing protest op-eds in newspapers
will not work. Making some protest remarks while endorsing yet another Democratic Party ticket just
repeats past mistakes.
US capitalism’s decline continues as competing economies rise (China, the European Union, the
BRICS countries, and so on). The rich in the US use their wealth to grab and hold everything they
can amidst decline. Without a changed strategy, working class conditions will be taken down with
and by the system’s decline.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
What the working class can do is move into the streets to stop “business as usual” until steps are
taken to reverse the last 40 years’ redistribution of wealth. Workers must also stop endorsing and
voting for candidates who do not serve their interests. Nothing would better show workers’ seriousness
about reversing the last 40 years than building a new labor-based political party to change US politics.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
@@jamesmorton7881 that's so dumb, you should look at prosperity and not income inequality, the standard of living is continuously going up because the big businesses are competing to give us amazing products at cheaper prices that better our lives and make it easier to live, there's a large income inequality between Bill Gates and Donald Trump, they are both rich, income inequality is not a bad thing inherently, if everyone's getting richer then it's a good thing
Incredibly clear explaination, thank you for your work, comrade.
Comrade Balkan Odyssey
@@corryburton9834 if communists only want power then why do we side with the powerless?
Somehow the algorithm brought me here. I’ve never been so grateful to find a channel. Thanks for doing this work
Thank you so much. I found this video helpful in understanding Karl Marx's view on Capitalism. Excellent work!
He forgot to mention people eating their own children in Bolshevik Russia during the food famine if the 1920s. As well as the pile of dead bodies that has amassed every single time this idea of fairy tale of unicorns and rainbows has been attempted.
Learn to be happy with what you have and if you don't like it learn a skill that you can market and don't be making chairs your entire life.
The capitalism of his day was laissez-faire ie free market capitalism, which ended in the 1890s with the Sherman Antitrust Act and progressive taxes. What the vid doesn't mention is that a lot of his ideas are part of our present economy through Keynes' interpretation, as Keynes was a known socialist. Also it may have helped to mention that Marx was a popular business correspondent for the New York Daily Tribine, and received his PhD from an elite university.
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
@@tuberific454The Sherman Anti-Trust act was notorious for not being enforced much. It alone did not end the Gilded Age. Not even close. Also, Keynes wasn't a socialist in any sense of the word. He disagreed heavily with Marx. What does Marx going to university have to do with this video btw?
@@idontknow5249 My point was that a market ceases to be free once government takes an active and direct role in its affairs. So, while the Gilded Age did not end solely as a result of those policies, its so-called "free market" underpinnings were effectively redefined. Also, Keynes called himself a socialist, was actively engaged in socialist movements, and referred to his research as the "socialist project." While yes he did not outwardly align himself with Marx in particular, that doesn't mean he wasn't a socialist. Per ChatGPT, the so-called "mixed economies" ie the various iterations of social democracy including the US trace their roots to Marxist theory. Also, I reflexively mention Marx's credentials due to the broad misperceptions surrounding his background. In other words, it is not anyone's imagination that it is commonly repeated that Marx "was a business illiterate who inspired millions of deaths and failed economies." This of course from an academic perspective could not be further from the truth. Per ChatGPT, "Marxism is more aligned with western democracy and its principles of individual liberty than with Stalin's interpretation."
I support all of this EXCEPT that in reality, things go way different, for example in my country, workers TOOK THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION of an Airline company. All of the workers (pilots, airport staff, flight attendants, etc) starter working for themselves. They commisioned a directive and gave bigger salaries accross all workers. What happened 6 months later? THE AIRLINE WENT BANKRUPT. They couldn't make it work.
That's what happens when people take the means of production: they are more focused on the paycheck they recieve at the end of the month, instead of trying to make the company work by spending less and producing more.
因为一切仍然在资本主义的框架中执行。
The revolution must be global (Trotsky said it). Even if you took the entire country industries in the hands of workers the industries of diferent products are better done in other contries (like gas in russia, coffee in brazil). One company ruled by workers cant survive in capitalist society alone, the capitalists dont do what they do because they want, but because they need to.
Thank you. An interesting sketch. As someone who has lived in both systems, it seems to me the predominant downfall of both is corruption and greed.
Have you lived in both systems? Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. At the moment I am writing this comment, there hasn't been a single country with this economic system
Just like you, I could say "I lived in both"... It would be a mistakr though. I've always lived in capitalism: first, State capitalism. The, private capitalism.
I fully agreed, but communist will deny that.
@@madjidmouas3519 Are you a marxist or communist?
@@jaysaini955 Nope!
I would like to add subtitles in Spanish. no sure how can I help.
This is an excellent starter for people wanting to consider to understand the ideologies and philosophies of Carl Marx, and delve from it any perspective regardless of what kind of political philosophy they support. It is good to know and understand your own, an opposing, or adjacent perspective with a good clear definition of what it is trying to do, portray, and perceive on society. I feel like this is an excellent way to stir the mind to seek out further knowledge of the matter, even if there are some rebuttals to this ( and their may be rebuttals to those rebuttals, but I'm not sure on that matter personally.)
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Fucking based stuff mate. I'll be linking your video to anyone asking for the basics of Marxism. Also the cartoons are pretty cute. :) Keep up the good work! ✊🏾
workers could take a collective loan to purchase the ways of production and split the profits among themselves (a co-op business). Workers can do that under capitalism.
In some countries you might even use the land and building as collateral for part of the loan to reduce your debt is the business fails.
I wish workers got together to fund co-ops more often to set up an example.
The problem is that under capitalism, co-ops have a hard time with their business since the competition is with bosses who will do anything to get the most profits, like suppressing wages, extending working hours. Capitalism doesn't play fair
@@TheQueen-sw4th
Spreading the profits fairly doesn't make you less competitive. The sum of every wage would still amount to the same cost.
As for the empirical effectiveness of worker co-ops, they have similar productivity to single-owner businesses. Check this video.
ua-cam.com/video/yZHYiz60R5Q/v-deo.html
@@caiomh7605 But the whole point is to make as much profits for the business as possible. Businessmen obviously give workers a fraction of the labour they produce. The competition is how much profits could you make. How low must you pay your workers to do so? But I'll check out the video
@@TheQueen-sw4th
I'm talking about splitting the profits more evenly (with equity), not increasing wages. The final cost of labour is the same, meaning that the final price to the consumer wouldn't change.
The difference is that one system concentrates the surplus with the owner/shareholders, while the other splits the surplus among the co-op members.
Equity also increases productivity, because workers who are rewarded for the prosperity of the company are more productive than workers who have fixed wages.
@@caiomh7605 Wait a second....are you....a socialist?....
Excellent video. I'm really looking forward to other parts.
As far as I know, this video was made possible through technology developed by capitalism. If I'm not mistaken. I'm honestly trying to understand why people dislike capitalism. I'm pretty sure that the alternative will result in utter depreciation of the human race. But it sounds great in theory.
You're thinking about it the wrong way. This video was made possible by the technology developed by engineers and workers. Linking it to capitalism is reductive and introduces an element of mystification.
Marx outlined the errors and shortcomings of capitalism. Marxists and socialists view capitalism as a natural step in the evolution of human society, without attaching any dogma to it. On the other hand, capitalists and defenders of corporate interests mystify the system with concepts like 'the guiding hand of the free market,' 'risk-taking,' and 'human nature.'
Yes, technologies have been developed within capitalist systems, but that doesn't justify upholding the status quo. In the past, reactionary defenders of feudalism used similar weak reasoning to defend serfdom: 'The societal order provided food and protection,' 'It was set by God,' or 'Who will sow the fields if social class orders are dismantled?'
The same goes for defenders of slavery, who argued that it was in human nature and asked, 'Who will work and ensure human progress for so little?', ‘Slaves cannot rule themselves, the master-slave dynamic must be protected’.
现代意义的纸起源于封建主义社会的古代中国。如果说消灭资本主义就是消灭这些技术的话，那么消灭封建主义就是消灭造纸术。所以按照您的理论，我们生活在资本主义社会，就不能使用通过封建主义发展的技术成为可能的纸张。
@@gottod6895 There would be no competition or drive to make better products without the idea of capitalism. Workers would not compete against one another naturally just to make better stuff.
Can you make a video on types of New Economics? Like Doughnut Economics or others.
Yes, videos on similar topics are coming soon :)
This is hands down the BEST video on UA-cam which describes the basics of Capitalist Production, why it contains the mathematical seeds of its own destruction and inevitably produces class conflict.
Except it doesnt have to, and the US specifically is a mixed economy, not strictly capitalist.
Capitalism has been "late stage" for over 100 years. It ain't collapsing bud
Free market capitalism is the default and will always exist.
Damn this was actually really helpful and easy to understand
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Hello, i'm from Indonesia and i would like to ask you if i can make this video with Indonesian subtitles and give credit to you, thank you
THIS VIDEO IS AMAZING!! You really helped me out with my Marxian Economics essay, THANK YOU!
W (who) TF do you imagine was going to pay for trump's MASSIVE debt ? THe Rich ? The Russians ? The F_GOP ?
The millions who LOST their jobs resulting from the botched COVID response ?
your are your kids are your grand kids are American who pay taxes
driving that train, out of cocaine
trouble ahead
trouble behind
don't think, your losing your mind
@@jamesmorton7881 bruh wtf are you saying I'm hella confused ??
@@Frenk33 Maybe he's responding to someone else? I am not sure.
@@knightlypoleaxe2501 Um... he's spamming to create dissentin within the USA. likely a Russian or Chinese bot.
Where do you study Marxian economics? There is only one university that teaches it in the US
I just started the communist manifesto and this video was really helpful!
Pesta Náme do yourself a favor and read Behold a Pale Horse instead.
That's good to hear. I am glad you found it helpful :) Enjoy the class consciousness.
No where in the manifesto does it say murder is wrong. Rethink your Ideology, or you could be the next victim. Cording to Marks if you make more money than I do I technically have the right to go murder your family steal your home? How much money do you make a year?
@@joedecker4227 what are you talking about? the communist manifesto is an economic theory book it’s not a book laying out laws about things like murder. you’re being ridiculous.
and it’s not about people who just “make more money”. it’s about the top 1%, the big business CEOs, the absurdly wealthy, etc.
@@joedecker4227 u didn’t watch the video
Thank you for the time that you've put into creating this! I'm so pleased to see that you don't run ads - will subscribe though! Keep going
MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
This is definitely a quality video that effectively summarizes how a Marxist thinks. We must also understand that it doesn’t fairly depict the capitalist’s view - nor does it claim to, so we don’t have to expect the video to do so. Good to keep all this in mind as we keep learning!
Doesn't fairly depict the capitalist views? 😃 yeah, something we should all definitely keep in mind. Thanks.
@@michaelmappin1830 LOL
It’s fortunate that Marx’s predictions were completely incorrect. Wages have been increasing in inflation adjusted dollars for decades. Unless the world economic forum gets their way, everyone will still have private property, and won’t have to live in the pods, eat the bugs, and own nothing.
@michaelmappin1830 can we spot the rich capitalist in the comment section
@@capitanclassic8624bot detected
1.I can use a lot of the same logic to argue that we were enslaved by Nature
2. The video forgets that is much is corporations will compete with each other by undercutting each other in prices they will also compete for labor by offering better wages.
It seems that the main question is why is it we give the surplus value to the capitalist? Why does ownership of the means of production entitle him to it?
The only Capitalist defence as to why I've ever heard is along the lines of "well, he risked investing in those means of production to employ you".
Apparently a risk taken once entitles one to rob you of large chunks of your wage for what can be the rest of his life, not to mention that workers risk many things under the capitalist and are not compensated for it.
Because laws are designed to favor the capitalist, and people have been propagandized into not believing in the concept of labor theft, that the money stolen through exploitation was actually earned fairly.
Its his creation. He owns the business. He hired you to help him make money and you said yes.
market determines that instead of some mythical altruistic group of people....
I think the surplus value is kinda like rent. If not, you would usually have to pay people to use their equipment. And since workers dont pay rent to use the means of production to create value, the surplus value is the rent you pay for using his machinery
Very well explained. I didn't realize I didn't really know the inherent contradictions of capitalism marxists talk about. Now I do.
They are presenting the capitalists doing nothing to obtain value. When was the last time you saw a successful capitalist like that? The concept is outdated at best
@@victorjre Every billionaire
@@victorjre doesn't matter they are still exploiting people.
@@rationalism_communism Yeah, no, they don't. We live in a regime that high commitment returns high income. I like good quality of live for everybody, but better for those that have a higher goal.
@@victorjre um yes they do exploit people.
what creates value is labour not "commitment"
Коммунисты России благодарны тебе за это видео! Ты настоящий человек, прогрессивный и трудолюбивый! Спасибо за просвещение людей знаниями, @Jimi Sol
cyka, коммунисты и сюда добрались, может сначала дашь людям туалетку и возможность посрать без видеокамеры в собственной квартиры (ах да, она же общая), или может возможность купить что-то кроме картошки не стоя 5 часов в очереди, а потом уже будешь про прогресс затирать?
@@john_lemon4205 В каком из советских туалетов видеокамера стояла? В СССР на 89 год только ~9 процентов проживало в коммуналках с общагами. Ну и большую часть истории СССР люди не стояли в многочасовых очередях за картоплей и т.д, иначе бы СССР 74 года не прожил.
@Max Avdyunin What power did capitalism use to domesticate you so well?
@@Tootmór Basic economics and life in a post-communist country.
@@john_lemon4205 "Post-communist" is not communist. they departed from communism and marxism
I’m reading Capital right now and felt a little stuck, this was very helpful!!!
This is just fantastic! I love it! Exactly what I was looking for.
private property is essential to motivate people to produce anything.
so you want money to get goods to live happily,or live happily
No? I'm pretty sure just wanting to live is a pretty good motivator on its own
@@DrizzyB noone needs to make better stuff to live, capitalism helps motivate people to make better stuff for the progression of technology.
Capitalists at the top are either entrepreneurs who have a lot of risk or investors who have to invest wisely or lose their money. It's because of this risk that they _sometimes_ become rich. Over 50% business fail within 10 years. That's a lot of risk of time, energy, and money. They don't just sit back and do nothing, that would increase the risk. So they get the surplus value, which often gets reinvested wisely into businesses that are more likely to succeed, grow, and create jobs that will last.
And that means they'll always have to expand ,go local, go national, go international than end up with a near monopoly that can afford to exploit without risks, maybe even use some surplus value to give to politicians so they protect the system you rely on for your profit, that you won't even ever need to live
lmao risk time and money by not doing shit ? gtfoh, theyre parasites and need to be treated as such
@@dialectixemcee2428 I’m assuming you are talking about investors? If you’re talking about business owners, you clearly have no understanding of operating a business
@@apolloxv8820 you obviously have no clue what you're talking about, capitalists are parasitic lazy scum, capitalism a virus to wipe out
This was mentioned in the video. It is reasonable for employees to own the means of production and allocate additional wealth for investment in expanding their “corporation”.
The synchronicity at 6:29 was so beautiful
Great video Jimi! Just wondering...is this video based on the Communist Manifesto specifically or all of Marx's work as a whole? Also did you create the animations yourself?
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
This video draws a little bit from Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital' volume 1, but it is mainly based on one of his pamphlets, titled "Wage Labor and Capital", which is much more accessible. It can be read here if you are interested: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm
In my opinion, the Communist Manifesto is not a very thorough summary of Marxist ideology. It was written to motivate the working class to revolt, rather than to provide detailed economic analysis. It thus has a lot missing from it, which is why it is so widely critiqued. People who criticize Marxism based only on the Manifesto most often have no idea about what Marxism actually is.
And yes, I did animate it myself. It takes quite a while, but I think it's worth it if it makes these concepts more accessible.
@@JimiSol hello im debating a capitalist but their saying that not everything needs labour to be exchangable (labour theory of value).
lets say I had a shiny rock but traded it. but their was no labour so not everything needs labour to be exchanged.
How do i counter argument this? and something about a previously unavailable use-value. thanks COMRADE!
There are only two classes of people represented in this video and I fall into neither category. I assume I’m the type that is taken out back and shot. And those workers who revolted and stole the owners property which he risked much to acquire, they have become the useless eaters who now produce things that are no longer necessary and are also taken out back and shot. Wouldn’t it be better for them to work to promote their standing in life and acquire their own means as the capitalist? Try reading Thomas Sowel… nobody dies in any revolutions in his books.
@@mrpoliticalguy5602 you had to first find the rock, then carry it to wherever you stored it
I love it when people with extremist ideologies try to point out the problem with the extremists on the other side never realize you end up with the same problems - monopolies and economic inequality, for different reasons.
Government monopoly bad but we can all see these Corporate monopolies are equally bad.
Regulated Capitalism or Democratic Socialism have different names but the policies tend to lean towards strong Centrist governments. Not extremists.
There are more than two options .
Don’t let these idiots fool you
Amazing work dude 🙌, please explain the remaining principles of the communism
The true cost of production are not getting paid. Clean air is not free. Clean water is not free.
Cheap labor has a hidden cost (government welfare).
capitalist are stealing these items (not paying) to make even more profits
A two class system is the end result. DEMOCRACY in the WORK PLACE.
(labor has a real vested interest in the value added) capitalist, not so much
ten yatchs ? twenty? does a CEO "EARN" 1000 time what you make ?
OCTOBER 29, 2020
HEADLINES GDP GROWTH +30 % sound good, but it is not
If you own a stock priced at $100 and it drops 30 percent, it is now worth $70. If it gains back 30 percent, it is then worth $91 (the gain is just $21 because 30 percent of 70 is 21).
100 BASELIN ------- 100--0
70 AFTER 30% DROP --- 70--DOWN 30%
91 AFTER 30% RISE-----91-- DOWN 9%
98 AFTER 40% RISE-----98-- DOWN 2%
( ( BASELINE -or+ NEW VALUE ) / BASELINE )( 100%) = % CHANGE
PERCENTAGE BASELINE +/- NEW VALUE DIVIDED BY BASELINE TIMES 100%
100 DOWN TO 70
( ( 100 - 70 ) / 100 )( 100%) = ( 30 / 100 ) ( 100 ) = 30% FALL
70 UP TO 100
( ( 70 + 30 ) / 70 )( 100%) = ( 130 / 70 ) ( 100 ) = 185% RISE GIGANTIC % RISE TO RETURN TO START
The remaining principles are, that when you are no longer useful…you die. They call them “useless eaters” and they murder them.
What the working class of Chile learned in 1973 is that socialism has to be organically embedded at grassroots level - and that the military must be on board [which was not the case]. Much easier said than done - especially with the CIA actively supporting the capitalist counter-revolution. I think the experience of the Arab Spring proves the same point. Meanwhile, the fight goes on!
How may workers given the choice to wait 30 to 90 or greater for their money on the whim of not get paid after they have waited ?
Social issues can never be solved by institutions that require power. Which is the reason why Socialism has never expanded the capacity of any society to date. OTOH Capitalism, Democracy and Science have indeed expanded the capacity of every Society they encounter. Your video on Worker-Owned Capital should have opened your eyes. As it includes the principle that only the person who benefits from a thing will look after it. Human nature above all - which was the core thesis of Adam Smith's two volume argument. To wit: empathy is natural and an open market is the correct place to exchange values. Which to date, has never been realised, as we still carry historical baggage like a open wound, e.g. religion, history, achieved ignorance.
Socialism is a bottom-up, democratic non-hierarchical system of organization. Unlike with capitalism, you don't have someone at the top with dictatorial powers that has extreme control over those underneath. Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production. The workers have sovereignty. There is no higher authority. That makes communities and citizens less depended upon the government as well as capitalist corporations.
@@michaelmappin1830 What you have described is Capitalism 101. The legacy need for strong government is mankind's Achilles heel. Presumably because humans are scared of fully robust and dynamic democracies so we stick with the proven architect of failure (see: Tytler Cycle).
Adam Smith was writing about worker-ownership: which you would know if you had read both volumes in order, _Moral Sentiment_ then _Wealth of Nations,_ with an open mind.
No Socialist system ever employed has avoided dictatorial interference. Reason: any loci of power retains its toxic effect on the human mind.
Surplus value does not exist. The wage is not “less than the exchange value that you produced” because again value is subjective. He values the labor more than the wage, while you value the wage more than the labor. You did not produce the chair, nor was the value differential between raw materials and finished goods due to your labor alone. It was your labor plus his capital. He isn’t taking surplus value. He is giving you your cut and he is getting his. You both contributed.
Oh ffs your wage is not only the amount that you need to survive. Wages in reality are high enough to save money and buy your own.
@@ExPwner What a disgusting lie this is.
Anyone working at minimum wage would tell you that's not true. Also, before you even say "only high-school kids work minimum wage", why is McDonald's open during school hours?
@@TheHauntedKiwi it is not a lie. What you just said is.
@@TheHauntedKiwi don’t eat that garbage. It’s poison.
那么请问资本家的钱是哪里来的？如果不是依靠剥削，那么为什么资本家不通过劳动就能得到钱财？
Man, this video is well-made. Great AE skills!
Beautiful, funny and simple. Well done.
If you want to own the means of production, wouldn’t you just start your own business? Why work for someone else, other than maybe some training? When working for someone else, I find that going the extra mile right off the bat strengthens your chances of advancing. Especially when there’s whiners around constantly complaining why that can’t advance.
You know who’s being exploited? The little brown kids mining the lithium and cobalt for all the fancy electronics we use to complain about capitalism.
"You know who’s being exploited? The little brown kids mining the lithium and cobalt for all the fancy electronics we use to complain about capitalism." - yes, they are. What's your point? They are exploited by capitalism,. for the benefit of capitalism. The fact that people in western countries are _less_ exploited doesn't mean they're not exploited.
The 'start your own business' argument is so silly. I hear it all the time. It's hardly a universalisable solution to the general problem of exploitation, is it? You couldn't run a modern industrial society on the back of 43 million sole traders (to take my own country as an example). We need collective and complex organisational structures. What we don't need is for those structures to be mini dictatorships.
such a good explanation
So i agree that competition leads to lower prices, but im not sure that it leads to oversupply. Owners can control their supply of goods. That didnt make sense to me. Also, if prices and wages drop proportionately why would folks not be able to afford those goods?
competion not just lower goods price,indeed it also lower your labor salary,money more dont means you are rich,indeed everytime when gov print money,1USD in your hands will be as half useful as past
The surplus value theory is subjective nonsense.
Trucks are very expensive to operate in the transportation industry. IF* drivers seize the private property of the those who own the trucks through bloody violent revolution, i.e., theft, they are going to be in for a rude awakening on the cost to maintain and operate that truck.
Being paid upon the agreed terms of exchange of value isn’t exploitation. You are free to take your labor elsewhere where or buy your own truck.
But stealing someone’s private property is reprehensible, and clearly is immoral.
Buy your own truck and find out the hard way. With risk comes rewards. This is why owners deserve everything they risk in order to be successful!
And socialism has never created wealth, only capitalism has. Socialism only redistributes wealth created by capitalists.
Hyper-productivity is the only option that must be achieved in order to match the material gains of capitalism, in order to meet everyone’s means to have your communist utopia. But how can hyper-productivity ever be achieved in a socialist utopia without capitalism? It is impossible! Eradicating capitalism is killing the goose which lays the golden eggs!
Errant marxism is pure foolishness!
the value produced by workers also pays for the maintinance of the trucks...
@@afgor1088 , not if you arbitrarily give all the profits the truck makes to the driver? Meaning over pay him above his wage, and give him the profits, then there’s nothing left for the owner for his risk or even cover the expenses?
And how do you justify “theft” of someone’s private property, since the truck didn’t just fall from the sky?
Neoliberal austrian marginalism is subjective nonsense. The Labor Theory of Value is science, an intuition in Adam Smith's time that has since been supported by data.
@@rsavage-r2v , trucks don’t fall from the sky? They are costly to buy, they take fuel, parts, insurance, and the licensing? If you arbitrarily give more profits to the driver, then the business owner who owns the truck loses money. The value of labor theory is just subjective nonsense by irrational marxists who don’t know what they are talking about.
@@Italian097 The basis of neoliberalism is literally called the 'subjective' or 'marginalist' theory of value. Find some articles on marginalism and austrian economics and see for yourself. Except it's not a theory because it's not falsifiable, unlike the labor theory of value which predicts the actual state of the economy. Look at economist Paul Cockshott's "Why the labor theory of value is right" on UA-cam.
LTV is not a moral statement, it's simply an observation about the objective requirements for producing commodities. In the same way Adam Smith shows that impersonal forces will set the "natural price of labour" at the minimum wage required to keep workers from starving to death and enable them to give birth to more workers. He's describing a mechanism, not saying what they 'deserve'.
And, just to reiterate, the LTV is not specifically marxist. It is present throughout 18th and 19th century liberal economics (John Stuart Mill, all the rest). If we attribute it to anyone, we should call it Adam Smith's Labor Theory of Value.
That's from the days when 'capitalism' meant factories, unlike our modern era from Reagan and Thatcher forward where 'capitalism' means wealthy usurers and absentee landlords instead of real jobs.
If everyone takes what they produce, they how will society even work? I can just produce more and thus take more, which basically means that everyone must produce what they consume, so everyone is basically responsible for themselves, which will lead inevitably to famines and problems.
This system needs reform, no one that isnt a capitalist can deny that, but the complete abolishment of capitalism doesn't work, as we have seen countless times in history
You don't need capitalism to have markets, businesses, people selling and trading things, innovation, production, etc. None of those things are unique to capitalism. You do not need to have rich people accumulating wealth from capital. That doesn't make things better, it makes them worse. Capitalism is the economic system of parasites. It has nothing to do with work, it's about accumulating wealth through Capital without doing work. And that comes at other people's expense.
Super informative and fun to watch! Thanks :)
Guys economics is a lot kore complex than this. Please dont let this be the be all end all of how you think of marxism and capitalism
Notice the capitalist just magically shows up and no one explains in this video how the capitalist became the capitalist.
Because that's kind of obvious, isn't it? He made a risk to invest and make jobs, but that one risk should not entitle him to commit labour theft
@@jared1964 how is it theft if he does pay the person doing the labor? The capitalist risked alot more to create the means of production, the laborer simple got hired and works. The laborer can simply get another job if the capitalists means of production fails to create value.
@@rezneps He did none of the work and you're making up a fantasy scenario where he took risk. One where LLCs and bankruptcy law is not written by capitalists.
Workers can take some risk and start their own business and keep all the profits for themselves. It is so simple and is practically guaranteed. No small business ever went under and cost the owner heart ache and financial loss. Funny though…workers still get paid. I mean, why work 8 hrs a day as an employee 5 days a week when you could work 15hrs a day 7 days a week and still risk the whole thing not working out?
原始积累。罪恶的圈地运动和三角贸易。
..just ideas, people falling for just ideas, do you want to know how it turns out? Look a history and what is currently going on in the world. If you have a personal problem with how it all works, that's not necessarily my problem.
I have been looking for this video all my life! I will be showing this in all my Social Theory classes. You rock.
If you really want your students to know communism, you should have them read The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
@@tomjensen8749 excellent suggestion! I added it to my reading list
Thanks for making this video.
Great job, comrade!
rexamaine the whole capitalist / government / worker economy thing
We can doe better than capitalism.
Share the wealth, we all have to eat
If not , your few remaining workers just may not come in to work
screw us and we screw you
no jobs = no spending = lower profits
(we have to live on the small value placed on labor)
1930s crash coming soon, FED has no more amo,
Just pray the dollar can stand up.
Millions have no job. US labor costs have been stripped to the bone for the last 40 years.
FLAT WAGE GROWTH
The history of income DISTRIBUTION has always been political.
The rich make all the rules.
salary
taxes
laws
laws enforced
transparency
accountability
health insurance
educational opportunity
@@jamesmorton7881 so the people own everything but the government controls everything, so crony capitalism just finds a new medium in the government and people like me are shut out of any opportunity to be anything but a laborer who works for the government for free... kinda sounds like nationalized slave labor to me
@Geoffrey Campbell you just described capitalism twice. The beautiful free market you envision in the first example leads inevitably to the second example as firms tend towards monopoly and exert their power on governments to continue shoring up their margins.
This was awesome!!!! Thank you for the quick and clear explainer.
When a business has a few bad months losing money, do the “Workers who own the means of production” have to write the company a check those days they show up for work? Where did your furniture building stick man get the raw materials, utilities, factory space, advertising, legal council, accountant, government compliance officer, HR department, tools and customers? I missed the part of your video that suggested “all the costs of running a business are absorbed by the capitalist and all the profits go to the workers.”
moorskiano . Can anyone translate that last comment?
Wow!. Tough subject explained as simply as possible. I needed that, "surplus value", "private property", etc. Thank you! Something that stirkes me is, what about the means of production getting cheaper as well? What if it continues to get more affordable to make your own stuff. Coops slowly take over faceless corporations as people strive for responsibility, etc. Private property stays but becomes less central in our lives as health/quality of life takes over.
Things marxists economics ingore (by now it's just lies):
- It never tells you where the means of production actually came from. If you ask, they will tell you it's probably inheritance (like that doesn't mean someone actually had to work to aquire them in the beginning, anyway).
- It lies about the proletarian not being able to buy anything else except the every day subsistence consumables. Most business owners are people who started working as an employee, learned the profession, saved money and bought the means of production for his own bussiness
- It lies about the "capitalist" not working at all. Most bussiness owners work 24/7. Literally. Forget about family or friends. The bussiness owner has the biggest responsabilities in the industry. If something goes wrong, he still have to pay the wages even if it's from his own pocket. And his lifetime savings are at risk if the bussiness doesn't work
- It lies with the idea of classes. Anyone can become a bussiness owner (yes, the proletarian too). Even if you don't have the capital you can look for someone to finance your idea or just get a bankloan. If you think it's risky and hard work, yeah, that's what bussiness owners face every day
- Prices are set by the market, not the bussiness owner nor one buyer. If the job the "proletarian" does is needed and hard to master, the "capitalist" can't lower your wage because he can't get anyone to do your job. It's a lie that the capitalists never lower his income. Actually, the bussiness profit is the most variable income in the whole industry, because he doesn't have a salary, he just gets the profit that sometimes might be even negative
- So, when did actually happen that the means of production are no longer profitable and the capitalists has to sell them worldwide?.
- So it's inmoral to buy a worker's service with a wage if he agrees but it's perfectly ok to steal the means of production from someone what worked all their life to get them?
- So once you steal the means of production, who is going to be the director of the industry?. As soon as you ask yourself this question you will realise how hard the bussiness owner actually work. And here is another question. Who is actually going to create any bussiness if he will get his investings stolen?.
This ideas where all stupid already back in the day. But today are just plain lies that anyone can see just by thinking about how the market and any industry works. It's just a lie that politicans tell to get violent power from people who doesn't want to admit any responsability on their condition and want to blame others for their problems. You will not get anywhere with this kind of thought. It's just pathetic
1. Primitive Accumulation
2. Those are Petty Bourgeoisies, not Bourgeoisies. A Petty Bourgeoisie cannot become a Bourgeoisie with his own money.
3. Working ≠ working for commodity production. Laborators work for commodity production, and Bourgeoisies work for regulating production. However, the "work" of regulating production comes with power of domination of labor, which is the true point that Marxism demonstrates.
4. The power mentioned above is called the Capitalist. Capitalist is not money, it's power. So even if someone get a bank loan or investments, he didn't become a Bourgeoisie because essentially he do still not own the power. As mentioned above, he's just a Petty Bourgeoisies though.
5. Prices are set by the market with Nash Equilibrium, and the Nash Equilibrium is acheved by the Perfect Competition between every bussiness owners and every buyers.
6. The Great Depression
7. Primitive Accumulation had always been immoral. Social movements never considers moral. Is it moral that Louis XVI got beheaded? Is it moral that Robert Cromwell abolish the thrones of British Royal?
8. You have already given me the answer -- Hiring, but business man as employees and workers as employers.
@@BalthildIresYume Thanks for awnsering, since most of this things are never pointed out by marxists. However, it doesn't seems logical mostly because Marx didn't saw technology comming, that's why all his theory doesn't apply to nowadays. I'll try to bring this to reality instead of theory, because I don't think debate can come to anything if we just name authorities and don't explain how things actually work, sadly, this will make my awnser really long.
1) Primitive Accumulation as I understand in marxist views means the massive capital that was once made from things like slavery, colonization, etc, and as it grew it was inherited by following generations leading to nowadays "great capitalist" that no longer work and just sit tight and watch their fortune grow, right?. There are some critiques to that point of view: A) it's veracity and B) does this work good for the world and C) what to do about it?.
A) If you watch the top 1% of the richest people on earth you will see that in the span of one decade all the names changes and not for sons and daughters but for new bussiness people. Some of them didn't even have a dime in their youth, as I can cite some examples we all know as Gates, Jobs, Bezos and Zuckerberg. So how come they are not always the same families?. Also, what happens if the owners of such capital take bad decisions, as we have seen throughout history. They go broke. And if they keep taking good decisions, that means they are giving the consumers what they wan't at a competent level, so isn't that a good thing? (that's what I meant with work in B)).
C) The marxist awnser was one of the bloodiest disasters in human history, so I wouldn't rush to change it for the first idea that comes by
2) Petty Burgeoises: So to find common ground, you do believe that a proletarian can turn into a "petty bourgeoisies". Do millionaires enter the cathegory of this petty bourgeoisies? Because there is a great distance between a few millions and being the "all rulling capitalist" that marxism critizeses. If you say yes, then are you saying that the proletarian can turn into a millionare? even if it's just a few millions, it doesn't sound that bad. If you say that the proletarian can't turn into a millionaire then we all know that's a lie. I don't even need to mention the Gates, Jobs, Bezos or Zuckerberg here, so I guess you wouldn't deny that a proletarian can turn into a millionaire. As I said before, that doesn't sound bad. I guess the marxist critique is that at some point you need the "all rulling capitalists" to give you capital to grow, and in such exchange, they are exploiting you with the Primitive Accumulation that they just inherit so they don't even work and are still in power forever... but that is not how it works. First of all, most of the richest people's parents or grandparents werent even rich, as the people I mention before. Second, when the great capitalists give capital they are investing. Investing can go wrong if you don't study the opportunity (wich is actually a really hard work and takes a lot of knowledge and still you're only reducing the risk, not eliminating it). That's how the richest people go broke. And third, if I have a few millions (or less in the case that doesn't qualify as petty burgeoisies) and you give me capital wich gives me the oportunity to become a millionare (even beyond a few millions)... it's hard to see that as a scam, it looks more like a mutual benefit, wich is actually what the market is about.
3) Not sure if understanding your point, but I guess you mean that mostly, the marxist critique focus on commodities as in "the owner of the mine/field doesn't do anything and exploits the worker to get massive income as the worker gets a really low income" leaving outside of the critique pretty much the rest of the market wich is massive and keeps growing. But there are a few problems even with the commodities analisis.
A) A lot of the comodities changes, for example, lithium/uranium wasn't useful in the 7th century, so if someone buys a lithium mine get the chances are the money doesn't come from Primitive Accumulation, someone that actually make his way from proletarian to millionaire as I explained in the point 2) can buy a lithium mine. People also where poor and found oil/uranium in their own field.
B) The owner of the field/mine, even if it does come from Primitive Accumulation, still has to obey the market laws. He will have competence that will take him out if he doesn't administrate properly, reduce his income and gets the best human capital. So it's not just power, there are natural laws to it.
C) The commodities worker still doesn't just get "barely enough to eat". That's just a 1800's view, as most marxist views. They actually get paid pretty well, mostly because to work in a field/mine you have to learn to use machinery at least, wich is not something anyone can offer and that allows the worker to ask for more.
D) Even in capitalism it could be understanded that commodities, or means of production that comes from natural resources as fields, mines, sea, etc should pay big taxes, because they are exploiting natural resources that belong to a country, wich of course the state should use to provide the rest of the people, so there is a fair share of socialism for such markets, even in capitalism. That's something I would agree to apply
4) So this pretty much explains my questions in the 2) point. You would say that a proletarian can turn into a lower tier millionare (or Petty Bourgeoisies) by a loan or financiation. What stops him from keep growing to aquire a massive fortune and actually becoming a bourgeoisies and finance other people too. The rich people I mention before sure don't classify as Petty Bourgeoises (maybe because to be one you also have to own commodity production, and that's not that people's bussiness is about) and still those people went from lower class to massive wealth. Also, what's so bad about being a petty burgeoisies?. And even if you don't conform with the petty part, I would like the idea to go from lower millionare to massive wealth through external financiation
5) Isn't the concept of Perfect Competition what I mentioned in my point?. Isn't that good?
6) Primitive Accumulation is inmoral, as every socialists experiment ever tried, and inmorality breads failure and misery. But I would say that Primitive Accumulation is almost non-existing in today's market, as I sayd in 1).
7) A bussiness ruled by the workers is a bussiness model within capitalism, it's called cooperative bussiness (I'm not sure how it's called in english). It exists, but it's pretty much a bad idea since it's decisions are based on ad populum, the guy that cleans the toilets doesn't understand how to manage the bussiness so his vote is useless. Also, if the workers soon finds out that they don't have a salary and their income fluctuates when the bussiness isn't doing good, wich is what happens to the bussiness owner in the other model of bussiness. And if some of the workers are not good or fucks it up everyone pays for it. Also this is something that can happen inside capitalism, but when everything in a country takes this model, who is going to create new industries, and what's even less conceivable, who is going to innovate into new bussiness?
@@curseanalyst have you read das capital? I remember Marx talk many about what you said in his book
You've clearly never bothered to answer any of these questions yourself. You're just throwing a bunch of objections out there, most of which are strawmen, and hoping that they stick to some gullible person reading this. You can't get around the basic point that people are getting paid less than the value of their work, and no capitalist would hire any worker if that wasn't the case, doesn't matter what other distractions you can bring up about how often they see their families or whatever, the worker sees their families a lot less and lives a much worse life or else again, no one would want to be a capitalist. That and capitalism has created absolute misery which is really the main point aside from any philosophical moral issues with it.
@@curseanalyst First of all, these things are mostly pointed out by Marx/Engels/Lenin. Marx do see technology evolving too, yet he had already pointed out the decisive role of productivity progress.
1. The primitive accumulation is the answer of your assertion that "It never tells you where the means of production actually came from." Do not get off-topic.
A. The analysis object is class, a faction in the society as a whole, not the individuals in the class. No matter how many times those individuals was replaced, the class ruling the society and controlling the labor of production does not change overall.
B. Hangmans of the Tsar, generals of the Nazi, dealers of the African slave trading... they're also a kind of "work". If you think getting incomes by these "work" is just, right and fair... then I have nothing to say.
C. It's not. Let me cite Mark Twains' comment on the French Revolution:
> THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror-that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
2. You have totally disregarded the point. I've emphasized in the lase reply many times: the Capital is NOT MONEY, it is POWER. The relationship between money and power has described in [Das Kapital] (Specifically, in Vol.2 Part.2 [The Turnover of Capital]).
Imagine what you're saying if you replace the subjects in your sentences to "King", "authoritarian", etc. -- you're like saying if anyone comes form the people could be a minister and rule the state (selected by extremely strict conditions with pitiful chance), then the state is democracy, regardless whether the domination of the monarch and ministers obeys the will of the people. And you even say it's "mutual benefit", just because rulers have given some chance to the people. Ancient China actually have a system abovementioned, however, it's still a kind of dictatorship.
I remember there have been someone (maybe a feminist?) that proposed a term "Structural Contradiction" to criticize such arguments. The conflict is determined by the structure of the society, not specific individuals.
3. No. I was not saying "Bourgeoisies do not work". I was saying the division of work between two classes leads to the domination of one class to another. Actually, I agree that Bourgeoisies works hard too. However, the Bourbon family and the Tsars also works hard too, aren't they?
Moreover, the relations between Bourgeoisie class and specific Bourgeoisies has been described in section 1.A.
4. See section 2.
5. It sounds good, but only sounds good. I have had think you know the concept of Nash Equilibrium, so I don't explain it -- it's not a thing as good as you first look. Nash Equilibrium may leads to disastrous consequences, for example, bad money drives out good money.
When the sellers (Laborators) are much more than buyers (Bourgeoisies), says, when there're numbers of unemployed, the equilibrium is greatly benefit to buyers, and buyers de facto. take control over the market. Therefore, Marx hove already concluded that if Bourgeoisies want to keep their position, they must maintain the rate of population reproduction at a level that keeps at least half of the unemployed in the society (in [Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844]), and this is done though the state machine.
6. See section 1.C. Today's market are also immoral if you must view it from a moral aspect, only that its immoral spreads out over the time and so that it's hard to noticed, but when you sum them, you could see it's much more immoral than what Soviet states did. -- But again, it's meaningless to talk about moral on social movements, otherwise the Europe should still dictated by monarchs, and the America should still be a colony of Britain.
7. It's called the collective ownership in Socialism. It's bad only when it exists inside a Capitalism society. In fact, it runs well in a Socialism society. For example, the Angang Constitution is one of the most excellent instance of collective ownership factories (of course, only before the Chinese government turns to revisionism at 1977). This system cannot run well under Capitalism, because of the Nash Equilibrium.
This is THE MOST EASILY COMPREHENSIBLE explanation on whole of youtube.
This was absolutely usefule. Thanks👍
Excellent video. I'm really looking forward to see more videos. Good job
Two critiques,
1. You show the capitalist lounging, I'd suggest business owners are often doing specialized labor that only a small percentage of people can do (e.g. accounting, analysis, negotiations, etc). Furthermore, if the means of production are seized, whoever ends up performing this work will likely want a bigger slice of the pie given the fact that few of their peers can do the specialized work.
2. The end state you describe (right before the communist revolution) of production grinding to a halt is avoided in capitalism when there is not excessive friction (e.g. corruption) in the system. Won't the capitalist still want to buy things with his excess capital after the plant closing? Won't this employ people, who in turn employ others... Not going to say much more than that given this is just a comment.
Well made video though! I'm not a big fan of capitalism, but communism seems to have produced arguably worse results the majority of times it has been implemented.
thanks for summarizing this complex point of view :)
Sounds nice in theory, destructive in practice. Rulers sit on piles of gold, while calling the most successful workers greedy.
that's literally capitalism. that's what he just said.
which makes what he said all the more ironic.
The most successful workers are the ones who create new means of production (like mobile phones). They are called "greedy capitalists" by state rulers, who bribe people to get elected. Their forced redistribution reduces the means of production available, while putting money in their own pockets. See how these rulers treat those who seek freedom: ua-cam.com/video/sO-n-fqcV70/v-deo.html
What would be your opinion about non-capitalist productive enterprises, such as worker-owned cooperatives?
@@JimiSol I think worker-owned cooperatives can work under certain constraints. New Harmony was a failure, but the leadership structure wasn't the best. Voluntary cooperation is key, and there are many examples of this.
i support markets OVER capitalism. capitalism is the consolidation of control over property used for productive purposes (that is capital) at the expense of the actual market, especially in the form of corporate entities.
however, marxism even in THEORY is beyond idiotic to put it mildly, and even worse in practice
May I know how you think about Marxist economy? Do you yourself think Marxism is better
Marxism is communists and it's garbage to me capitalism is the way mix it a little its graetes
Capitalism has made every nation rich.
Capitalism is the reason you have that phone with apps on it and now you can watch UA-cam with 4g speeds.
@@Elmerhere Yeah I'm glad somebody has finally replied to this after such a long time. Don't get me wrong. What you've said is just considered to be the fact by me. I didn't ask that question in the comment section to express any kind of favor of Marxism. It's just that I've seen a lot of people, university professors, students and citizens from some commie dictator country, with leftie ideology using theories explained in this video to support Marxism.
I believe Marxism provides a useful method of economic analysis. I don't agree with everything Marx says, but I think there are a lot of helpful insights. How about you? Do you see any value in the Marxist worldview?
These graphics are incredible
I might buy the communist manifesto after this
Oof
Do it and you’ll come to understand how almost every aspect of our lives is affected by our capitalist conditioning. (From our family life to our work life)
@@Astro.98 I've read the communist manifesto. Pretty interesting read and I think marx and engels have accurate diagnosis but their solutions are borderline dumb especially with what we know about human nature. Basically what you would predict would happen with their solutions has happened every time. A lot of people say "communism is a good idea that hasn't been implemented correctly" when in reality it's a stupid system that has worked as expected every time.
555salt human nature is what the conditions of society make it. Primitive humans originally lived in communes where all provided for each other, communism.
Instead of doing that, acquire a skill that is demanded by today's market, it will help you a lot more than feeling depressed at why your country is not a communist one.
"in order for something to be valueble for trade, it must be useful"
WRONG.
What use do things like accesoirs or a football have? They arent useful for anything. You might enjoy them or like them, but they have absolute no use in themselfs, yet they are valueble tradable items.
Would you not say that a football is useful for recreation?
@@JimiSol Value comes solely from supply and demand. To judge 'use value' is futile, because that is subjective and cannot be quantified.
@@devanshrathore9112 and yet is, by money
@@andrewd2534 price = exchange value. Not 'use value', which is just an abstraction and inconsequential for the market. Common sense?
The overview assumes the capitalist makes a profit (surplus). There is nothing inevitable about that. He could just as easily make a loss. Profits are thus the private property of the capitalist as they bare the risk of loss, not borne by labor. The capitalist must also delay his gratification from profit because he can only bag the surplus after labour has been compensated. Basic accounting equations, folks. Marx's model also understated the importance of the capitalists innovation, organisation and initiative. Without it labour would have nowhere to receive compensation for its services. If, as shown in the video, you say they can do the work themselves without the capitalist, well then what are they waiting for? Simply proceed without the exploitative capitalist.
I know the video is decidedly simplistic to fit everything into under 9 minutes but where does the capitalist get his means of production from? The overview makes it seem as if he just happens to have these means.
That wages are beaten down as production efficiency rises is not true. Labour is compensated according to its productivity. Logically then as productivity rises due to efficiency labour becomes more valuable.
Empirical test: where are all the states that applied Marxism today? Hows their program working out?
This is a good discussion point, one of many about the importance of liberty of capitalism. Kind of shocking that this clever animation is easily portraying Marxism as a beneficial method to adopt. Very biased perspective of Marxism.
@@wcbscout thanks for your remarks
No, he could not. He would simply lower the wages or shift his capital into another venture.
The idea that capital does anything useful or necessary in society is laughable
Nicely animated, well done.
As a baby leftist this video is extremely helpful as I find reading Marx quite hard to understand at times! Great information and I’ve got an answer and clear understanding of all of my questions :)
I had to read the first few chapters of Capital at least 4 times.
This is exactly why I choose not to buy from corporations and only smaller or person/family owned buisnesses.
If they get enough business, what do you think they will do? Stay small?
The employer/employee relationship is exactly the same regardless of the business size.
@@PCFLSZ Supporting small businesses means supporting a larger number of businesses which means supporting a larger percentage of people in the capitalist class which also means improved mobility from the worker class into the capitalist class, and less profit per individual capitalist. The concept may be the same but the numbers get better.
Very good work 👍👍👍, communism oversimplified
Private Property itself is the tool of exploitation, when it's the worker who doesn't share in the surplus. Privatisation of the property is the privatisation of the surplus. If there is no exclusive surplus, there is no private property as defined.
Do we live in different timelines where wages go down? Wages have always gone up, and cost of goods down, oh and you talk about competition in selling, but not competition in gaining employees.
When your worldview has to ignore reality, it's not very good.
The individual is the means of production. Every individual has the ability to trade or donate their time to the market aka other people. If an individual is able to acquire a surplus after a voluntary trade has taken place then that individual will be able to accumulate the surplus. The individual is free to consume or invest their accumulated surplus aka their wealth. If they invest wisely then they will become more efficient and have more leverage, thus making it easier to create more surplus and so on and so on.
Who makes the surplus? Workers who are exploited.
@@leoziman8689 wrong it the buyer actually with the buyer you have no job go try running a business
@@leoziman8689 workers are not exploited or producing a surplus. Read Bohm Bawerk.
@@joshuaoverlord5327 workers are also the buyers
This video captures some of Marx's points but also his spin. Notice how the provider of labour is painted as in some way at a disadvantage because the position of the owner of means of production is not discussed in the same way. We are told how the worker needs to the capitalist, but not how the capitalist needs the worker. But of course the owner of means of production also needs to person who provides (skilled) labour. The two depend on each other and there is no inherent basis of one to have the upper hand.
In the video, the capitalist always smokes a cigar, wears a top hat, and has smug tone of voice. Really? Nobody does that at work in the UK. It's a ridiculous caricature.
Then we are told that the capitalist pays the worker only a small amount relative to the exchange value of the good. Really? Surely the finished item made by the worker does not have the exchange value it will have later once it has been marketed, transported, sold, and paid for.
Somehow, in this video, the worker does not get enough to save from month to month (which is not the case for many people who sell their labour today) yet the capitalist accumulates (which also is not always the case since many business backers find they lose a ton of money while their employees walk away from the failed business and into another job).
Then the capitalist is depicted as not working. Really? Even people who live entirely by investing money in companies have to do at least something to decide what to do with their money. People who literally do nothing but live off their wealth today are extremely rare individuals. This again is an unfair presentation of modern economies that use markets and have business backers using shares as part of their system.
After that, the video gets increasingly ridiculous and I'm not sure how close to Marx it is.
You don't think the capitalist has an upper hand? Are you out of your mind? 😃 you obviously don't have a very good understanding of how capitalism works.
@@michaelmappin1830 Shareholders can have a good negotiating position in some cases, but weak in others. You have to look across the whole range to understand that neither side has an inherent overall advantage. We need to cooperate. We are, by nature, a cooperative species. Marx's presentation of the situation was not entirely accurate at the time and is much less relevant today. The UK, for example, with its social market economy, is not much like the system Marx so resented.
@@matthewleitch1 , dude, you are completely out of your mind. Why do you think it is people unionize? What happened to the United States when the capitalist class succeeded in destroying most of the Union? United States is like number one when it comes to First World countries in regards to low-income workers. Most of the population can't afford a family on a single income and works from check to check. And because now all most of the wealth that used to go to workers is now going to the owners of capital at the top of the Apex, the richest 1% have almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American populations. Before the pandemic the United States was number 27 on the social Mobility index. With every passing day we can produce more more with less and less labour. Workers have to compete with one another in order to get the remaining jobs. Especially jobs that pay decent and have benefits.
The owners of capital have massive over the working class. And when the workers do try to go on strike, the government calls when they Central workers or declares the service essential. And then, just like in the days of Rockefeller, Carnegie, JPMorgan, the cops get called in with their billy clubs to put you in your place.
@@michaelmappin1830 The modern economic system used in the UK, where I live, is substantially different from the historical examples you list and so they are not directly relevant. Union membership in the UK has been declining steadily since the 1970s and is significant now only in the public sector and for private sector industries that are heavily subsidized. Most people unhappy with their jobs just look for another one. The major trade unions have to work hard to stoke resentment and gain members because their services are less valuable today.
Clearly, a single very wealthy person has more power in the world than a single not wealthy person, typically. However, collectively things are more balanced. A wealthy person still cannot get much done without the cooperation of others. It is also often the case (but not always) that what wealthy people want to do is good for just about everyone. That may be a major reason why the individual has become wealthy.
And remember that differences in wealth are far larger, but less important, than differences in real resource consumption. If you want someone to resent, consider the UK's royal family. They do very little that is really useful and yet have exclusive use of a large number of enormous houses, plus cars, etc, and a huge amount of effort is needed all the time for their security. In contrast, business investors that do fundamental analysis, make long term investments, and support companies we really need are doing a very useful job and, if they don't consume more than they need, are doing it on very generous terms.
Finally someone is speaking
Speaking what?
Simple but strong. Good job!
CEOs and owners do work, more than the average worker a lot of the time.
U wish
CEOs and Investors (owners) aren't the same thing. (i don't see one but still) even if CEOs work more than workers, how much they work more than them?? Is it more enough to be calling the income disparity justice? I don't think so.
Here's the simplest way I can explain it. How much harder do you possibly think they are working? 1.5 times? Twice? Hell ten times? IF that were true (keep in mind I'm not currently debating if they do or not), they should be making proportionally more. Twice as much compensation for twice as much labour. But as it turns out, modern capitalist economics do not support this model, and this is super easy to prove. Think about it, if every worker was equally compensated for their work, there would be no jobs more sought after than others, people would just choose the best fit for them. Lots of people want to be CEOs, but if their income was fixed to the actual labour they put in, how many still would? Workaholics, control freaks, creatives maybe, but the majority would switch their focus as they'd miss out on the unequal proportion of earnings given to CEOs. If all jobs were compensated equally for the amount of work put in, people would choose jobs best suited for their life, and there would be significantly less demand for jobs which are typically unfairly compensated for. Now, I don't personally agree that CEOs work just as hard, having worked predominantly in small offices were the CEO was everyone's boss and seeing how rarely they do even the minimum job requirements without board pressure, but regardless of my opinion, they're not possibly working so hard that the difference in earnings between CEO and their lowest paid employee, and thus are earning more than their fair share at the expense of their workers: exploitation.
As for owners, that’s... not a job title. It's not a job, you can be an owner but that title isn't a job title as it implies no labour. Shareholders are owners, at most they go to a meeting and vote occasionally, not a job. Sometimes the CEO is the owner, their job is to be CEO. Simply owning part of a company does not imply the input of any labour and therefore does not warrant (on its own) any income.
@@raininghail4049 that is non-sequitur since value is not solely from labor and compensation should not only go to labor.
If this were true they wouldn't be able to do it from their multiple yachts and vacation homes.
Enjoying and learning... I wonder if the struggle I went out at univ to understand that stuff helped in some way or another. One hing I'm sure of: count me a loyal subscriber. Thanks for your presentation.
was hoping that this video wasn't going to misunderstand and conveniently "leave out" fundamentals of capitalism (but it does), and extremely disappointed that you honestly think Marxism economics is the solution... this is really sad, especially to see so many people in the comments who are as ignorant as yourself and believe this is a viable way forward.. please read more books on other economic ideologies, and perhaps, in the process, your common sense will prevail
What fundamentals of capitalism does it leave out? Why isn't Marxism the solution? Why isn't this a viable way forward? As it stands, your comment is a nothingburger.
@@DrZhivago-l2b I'll answer your question. Capitalism for one gives any person the opportunity to prosper with deduction and capital for starting a business. Example you save 10k working for someone then turn around with the money you saved to start your own business, you are the only person working that business for years. You are getting old so you start hiring people to work the business with you and the money you've been making off that business that you've worked by yourself for years, you turn that money into investing it into the business because you knew you wanted to expand when you get older. So everything you've worked for you've put into that business, now you stay hiring people to work for you and your company is expanding. Would you want to share all your profits with your workers if they didn't help you establish the business plan the work into the business like you, the business falls on your shoulders and the workers don't have that burden. Marxism will never work. If I started a business from scratch and worked that business for years and I have a family and kids, I'm leaving the business to my kids, why should the workers who invested no money no hardship get to split the business and get the business, doesn't make sense does it.
@@DrZhivago-l2b Marxist want all the profit but do not want to take any risk. Marxist also fail to understand the value of vision, drive, understanding complex systems, etc.
Most serious marxists are quite familiar with Smith, Friedman and everyone in between. The objections raised by neoliberal ideologues (Hayek, Mises, Friedman) are intellectually lazy and usually mystical and unfalsifiable, and have been rigorously addressed in marxist studies. Classical economics was pretty good up through Ricardo, and marxists refer to it often and in detail. Check out Michael Hudson on UA-cam for an example of this.
@@ghassanseoud4129 你创业一个试试？把你亏得倾家荡产
Great, another video of an idea that we have years of documented failures yet people still believe its viable
Owning the means of production:
You should try to get something valuable that the owner of the means of production doesn’t have.
Plus there are other people with that means meaning that if those people want to make money they have to make competitive deals.
Under a communist framework no matter who has the means of production it’s really owned by the government.
As far as labor makes things valuable.
Things must have an inherent worth or use such as shoes (protecting our feet) and they must not be readily available for free (like air). Now as much as it would be awesome to get shoes for free, they take labor to make. The more high quality the shoe the more labor.
We do not consider your crayon drawings valuable because not only did they not take labor but they are have inherent use value. (They are not fun to look at) if you put more labor into them (providing you have some drawing ability) they would have worth.
But you have to also remember that there aren’t a million of your drawings.
And there a rent because it takes time for you to make them.
Labor doesn’t always make something valuable.
Putting labor I useful things does.
And in a capitalist system people have no other option but to trade things that they have for that useful thing you made.
There is no reward for putting high amounts of labor into things in a communist system.
Under communism there is no government.
@@ohwell6364 投入->回报是资本主义下人们的想法。
So the gist of it is that private ownership of the means of production leads to competition, which drives down prices, which simultaneously leads to overproduction and a decrease in wages, which in turn makes the workers unable to afford the products they produced, which makes capitalists unabel to make a profit and in turn makes them lay off workers and close down factories, so you have a mass of products, factories and potential workforce that goes to waste?
Can you make a video of the vice versa? “What up with Marxism? A capitalist perspective”. It would be nice to understand how both sides think
Great question! But Marxist’s wouldn’t want that! I recommend reading about who Karl Marx was as a person, the bolsheviks (he was part of), and how disgusting his theories make people and places. Also the look up the Frankfurt school in Berlin where these theories began to develop and spread.
ah yes, Marx, the Bolshevik
lmao wtf are you saying kid
The problem is that marxists carefully study liberal and neoliberal works, but pro-capitalist ideologues do not do the reverse -- they simply praise the powerful and invent fairytales while, for example, the cycle of overproduction described in this video continues to create a crisis approximately every seven years.
Best short video on the topic 👍
After watching this video I can say I'm glad marxism is dead and hope will be gone forever :) Capitalism is not perfect but way way better
when china bought your land and property i hope you can still be proud capitalist.
@@epsilonxvi5675 which land was bought and china is the last step of Marxism just look at Russia
Thank you for the video. Question about what you said at the 3:33 mark…it seems that your comments are predicated on the presupposition that the person who is making the chair works FOR the person who provided them the means of production. Is it not possible that the person who is using the means of production to make the chair can just simply start their own business and be the one who profits from the sale of the chair? Why is it assumed in your video that the person controlling the means of production is also the one who owns the company who is producing the product? I can go to a lumber store (the owners of the means of production), buy lumber from them, and then build a chair. Even though the lumber store controlled the means of production, the lumber store does not profit at all from what I made. It seems like this video does not take into account that people can start their own business, purchase the means of production or rent the means of production from someone who has them, and then go start their own business and have complete control over the profit of what they produced. The people that control the means of production often are just suppliers of materials. They don’t care who they sell the means of production to. If someone takes the risk to set up a business, they go out and and invest in the equipment and hire people to work the means of production, and sell the produced product, why shouldn’t they enjoy the profit? They are the ones taking all the risk. If product doesn’t sell, they are the ones who are ruined…not the workers. They just move on to the next company and continue to get paid and buy their means of subsistence. Also, how did the capitalist in your explanation come into possession of the means of production (equipment) and the materials (wood, steel, etc.)? They weren’t born with them. They had to work, save money, and then choose to risk all of it by buying the equipment, the materials, and then paying workers to work the means and materials of production by starting a company. To my knowledge, aren’t we all allowed to do that? Am I misunderstanding what you’re trying to say?
Have you ever owned a business? The cost of production is high. Cost of operations is high. Cost for fair wages are also high. Business owners have to work just as hard. I agree that big corporations could have a cap in order to sustain fair wages( if their net income is high) but to adapt a complete Marxist economy would not work. There is too much missing from this animation. You also have the right to look for what wage fits your needs. With hard work you can also own your business as well.
You’re talking to kids, they haven’t done anything yet. Socialists have always targeted youth, intellectuals, and minorities to spark revolution. The issue is there will always be have and have-not groups. We are tribal creatures, so... world peace is not possible. The great thing about capitalism, is that it literally ushered in the age of prosperity, but it does have downfalls. These downfalls were what Marx saw, and he said would cause the downfall of capitalism. History has proven him wrong several times because he did not consider an additional player, the state. We can have a functioning capitalist society, with social programs to protect the masses. Example: Sweden is a capitalist economy with strong emphasis on social protection and benefits. We can not have a functional society with communism because it requires central power to enforce the rules. Example: all socialist country’s. The thing is, it’s about balance. The liberal mind is high in openness, but low in conscientiousness. They make great entrepreneurs, but are horrible managers. The conservative mind is high in conscientiousness, but low in openness. They use information and experience to process order, but are rarely good an innovation. Liberals have used conservatives for decades to identify risks to their innovation. When I say liberal, I don’t mean progressive. Progressives are against any collaboration.
Andrew Koy - you are completely right they do take advantage of our youth. I’m a bit bummed I didn’t catch it, thank you! I agree, every system has its flaws, some more than others. In the states we are capitalist and have adapted semi socialist programs. I can see that maybe adapting a few more policies like Sweden and keeping an open mind could help today’s economy. You bring up several good points and worth looking into.
If you’re owning a business and working at the same time you’re part of the petit bourgeoisie (little capitalist). That means you are susceptible to being outbid by larger monopoly corporations, and will return to being a proletariat.
"You also have the right to look for what wage fits your needs." That's dubious.. there's some difference, depending your capability, location, and place in society, that may only be within a range of subsistence wages, and... marginally higher/lower subsistence wages. With hard work, you're still only getting subsistence wages, and not able to save your way out of it.
@@Koitus36 Not talking to a kid here; I'm in my 30s. In the US, Progressive policy is so poorly represented that social protections barely exist, and are most often hobbled by being underfunded deliberately, or having loopholes for exploitation to make an example out of them. 40% of the population here is fighting over a combined 0.3% of the total national wealth, and servile to any job they can get.. if you want to call that prosperous, I'd beg to differ; I call that serfdom. Any who misses 3 days of food is a revolutionary in the making. One blown tire, medical expense, even a higher than average electric bill, and it can all fall apart. Many jobs offer wages that still cannot pay for basic subsistence (Walmart for example, which if you're in a small town with no college, might be the best option), and still qualify the worker for food stamps.. yet we cut food stamps.. all in spite of these companies making record profit and productivity margins. Still, people call for lowering regulations on these businesses, and cutting social programs. With this stark disparity in quality of life, and tonedeaf social Darwinist fascination for squeezing the poor harder, the system creates it's own radicalization by being so sociopathic and shameless in it's greed. For anyone below the middle to upper middle class, and hopelessly stuck there, it's a very different world.. one that seem in every respect, indistinguishable from chattel slavery. Unless you get a lucky break, or cut some serious legal corners (which many eventually do,) your life is coerced into desperately accepting whatever any company you can find, says it is. At that point, knowing you have Zero bargaining power, it's in the company's best interests, to keep you like that.
Simple and clear,definitely subscribing
His ideas are stupid you can be entprunur not a worker and get richer in Communist nobody owns nothing as individual and have no Freedom only be a worker on Gulag
Folks, lets also talk about how the capitalist can not only decide he wants to lower his wages but he can use all the profits he made off worker surplus value to now buy out all of his competition so that there is no one in the area to compete with, allowing him to raise his prices and make an even larger profit while continuing to pay workers close to nothing. This is how you get corporate monopolies!
The concept of surplus value is in its core is wrong mainly because of the fact that Marxists are confusing labor with value. Let me explain…
The workers are given the tools and instructions to build the product. (Ex. A chair)
The worker is not going to implement a massage mechanism in the chair or even wings so that the chair can fly. 😂
In other words, the worker is not increasing the value of the product. (Chair)
The worker is only making the product which in itself already has value determined by the supply and demand in the economical market.
The amount of money that is attributed to the worker is determined by the PRE-EXISTING VALUE of the service that he is providing (building the product).
Which is determined by other independent factors such as (how many ppl are able to perform that service, how many ppl are willing to perform that service, how much money are they willing to receive for that service, etc…)
The person who actually has to invest the money into the capital and the PRE-EXISTING service value that the workers are providing, is the OWNER of the means of production. (The capitalist).
And his job ( yes, he actually is a worker as well ) is to determine weather the invested value (workers, tools, land etc…) is lower than the cash inflow value (money going to the business).
In order to make a profit.
(AND YES, THOSE VALUES ARE INDEPENDENT FROM EACH OTHER)
But that is not as easy as it sounds, the owner has to more or less guess the value of the product based on some inaccurate market studies.
Which is risky ( the greater the risk the greater the profit).
And it’s only fair and moral that the person who holds the risk gets the profit.
“Buhhh Marx was wrong because (argument Marx refutes multiple times in the first chapters of Capital)”
Capital holds less risk than labor, since the costs of failure are first born by the workers in the form of layoffs
@@TheHauntedKiwi wrong
@@ExPwner 错个鬼
Why do people study such Dogma still?
Its not dogma, it’s revolutionary propaganda, deliberately engineered to generate hate among the lower classes and produce ‘revolutionaries’. The whole thing is built upon his ‘surplus value’….which he derives by hatefully omitting the contributions of the owning/managing classes to production. Its extraordinarily nasty stuff that we all need to be aware of and fight nonstop
A few things:
1) Who pays for the maintenance and initial capital for [means of production] and [private property]; if not the capitalist?
2) Is the worker going to hold part of his/her wage or surplus value after they sell their use-value?
3) How will the worker advertiser his/her use-value to generate means of subsistence?
4) What happens when two workers are creating the same use-value? wouldn't that start to cut into their wage or surplus value?
5) What happens when the worker's use-value becomes obsolete. Ie: the product they produce isn't worth anything anymore
So if the worker owns the means of production then there is no need for manufacturing. Each can make their own. But who produces the means? In the case of automobiles. Each builds their own? Who designs the car and how are they compensated? The world can't run on trade alone and there is no drive for innovation.
Even if the workers own the means by owning the plant. Someone then owns the substance.
Also in the case of bankruptcy who carries the burden of debt? The more you work the details the more you create a capitalist.
Your initial assumption that workers would immediately become isolated rather than continuing to do what they had been, just without a boss, is wrong.
@@bminecreeper the whole basic premise is they get the money. Not the owner or CEO or "boss". However if all the people or workers owned the means to produce their needs there would be no production. As they needed they would make. They would not need to constantly make. If it's a good that they know how to make but others would need then they would become a capitalist.
@@gofigure84 When there are no bosses, there will be no need for manufacturing? Doesn't make any sense to me.
@@joefes7409 where did I say no bosses? I didn't use the word boss once.
@@gofigure84 yea you did
Some of you are forgetting that the food, shelter, and other goods that you get from a communist economy would have lower quality than in a country with a capitalist country because no matter how hard you work in a communist country, you get the same amount of food, shelter, and other goods. While in a capitalist country you could do more work for more food, shelter, and other goods, or do less work for less. Capitalism rewards hard work and higher IQ, while communism treats everyone as if they were the same basic robot workers with the same basic needs. However, this video did a great explanation.
@lil Chungus But capitalism brings people out poverty. It helps lower the costs for consumers by competition.
ua-cam.com/video/M6y0EfFJpFg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=LearnLiberty
@Cheems comamder it also drives companies to compete with each other to make more efficient ways of production, which causes new inventions and technology to be made.
@@_vibeben I guess you all are ignoring the great depression and periodic downturns, right?
@@djongheleo9297 if only there were several examples throughout history of how communism provided the Utopia, instead of the several that all demonstrate its propensity to cause massive death and eventual failure. But you, of course, know better and have figured out how to do it properly this time.
@@karlm8411 when has ever capitalism caused a utopia ? For all i know cuba has the embargo on it and yet it somehow is the best country to live in from the Caribbean