Each episode of the series will discuss important topics of Marxist political economy. The video covers the following topics: -Commodity production -Value, use-value and exchange-value -Socially necessary labor time -Simple and complex labor
My understanding is this - from the standpoint of the dialectic of capital, the value of a commodity its marketability for the seller, whereas the use-value of a commodity is its utility to buyer. To this end, the inner logic of the commodity presupposes a social relation of private individuals who buy and sell commodities on a market to satisfy their needs, whatever may be their nature. For a commodity to be realized as value for the seller, it must be exchangable for another commodity which the seller desires. However, the seller of a commodity is indifferent to the use-value of the commodity they want to sell, so the exchange-value of a commodity can only be realized through the value-form, which ignores the use-value content of any commodity that is sold. This in turn necessitates a universal commodity called money that reflects the value of all commodities (within a market), but does not have a specific use-value of its own (beyond being a means of purchase). If money is a commodity, then it also must have an independent existence from the market as idle funds, which is to say that it can function as a store of value in entering / exiting circulation. This activity enables any commodity-owner to be a merchant if they so choose, where the name of the game is to buy cheap and sell dear, to earn as much money as possible. The very process of valorization (augmentation of value) is capital itself, whereby "equivalent" exchange is reduced to a petty matter of "gambling" over funds currently in circulation. However, this gamble is nevertheless qualitatively restricted to the use-values of the commodities which are flipped, which to some degree involves the discernment of buyers. Valorization via money-lending is an attempt at circumventing the mediation of use-values, but all it can do is intercept and parasitize existing mercantile profit. It is *only* with the genesis of industrial capital in purchasing means of production and labor-power as commodities that the use-value restriction to capital is overcome. The law of value ensures the unity of capitalist production on the condition that labor-power is a commodity, which permits the market allocation of labor across firms in socially necessary quantities.
Very interesting. Another interesting point- "Still, circulation of commodities can take place without physical motion by them, and there can be transportation of products without circulation of commodities, and even without a direct exchange of products. A house sold by A to B does not wander from one place to another, although it circulates as a commodity. Movable commodity-values, such as cotton or pig iron, may lie in the same storage dump at a time when they are passing through dozens of circulation processes, are bought and resold by speculators.[17] What really does move here is the title of ownership in goods, not the goods themselves. On the other hand, transportation played a prominent role in the land of the Incas, although the social product neither circulated as a commodity nor was distributed by means of barter." - Capital Volume II
Hi Finbol, a long time ago, like maybe 2 months ago, you had asked for information books on Bulgaria when it was socialist. I told you I had a good book in Spanish, but I did not give you the name. The book is named, " Conoce Usted a Bulgaria" it is a good book that analysis all aspects of Bulgaria economically, socially, politically, and geographically.
Constructive criticism: value is not "how much social labour is required to produce a commodity". When we see exchange value, i.e, that quantitative relation between 5 potatos and one table, we see that they are equivalent in that relation. If you say "I exchange 5 potatos for 1 table", you are saying 5 potatoes=one table. And we know that for two things to be equal, they need to have something in common that makes them comparable ("you cannot add apple to oranges"). That third thing, that atribute that makes different use values exchangable, is value. "Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things - in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third." Only after that Marx procedes with the investigation of what determines value ( abstract socially necessary labour time realize in a private and independent manner). If we reduce value to its mere quantitative aspect (socially necessary labour time), we haven't go nor even a step forward from what classical political economy did. Value is the representation of abstract socially necessary labour time realize in a private and independent manner, i.e, the exchangeability atribute, i.e, what makes use values exchangeable.
Pretty sure it was the German leaders at the time that told the kaiser the sending the Bolsheviks to Russia would cause chaos and pull Russia out of the war, so long story short German Marxist didn't do much
Thanks for these. Late capitalism really needs its own video. I think the progressive function has ceased for a while. The capitalist system has stagnated in terms of developing technology, except for ways of extracting rent, financial trickery and surveillance. The first two things being like termites eating away at the very foundations of the house it rests upon, and yet it has weapons to maintain control and end all life and in my opinion much it would rather end all life than relinquish power.
How about AI? The ever increasing computer processing speeds? Recent progress in gene editing? The RNA vaccines? Reusable spacecraft? Satellite internet? Recent developments in small nuclear reactors? The advent of electric vehicles? 5G networking?
@@LVArturs To be fair though capitalism doesn't in fact make anything. Labour does, i.e. workers do. The '-ism' (and that includes socialism) merely determines who has control of the means of production and who gets paid. In fact, most of the technology present in the those thing you've pointed out originated in the state sector, not the so-called 'free market.' I think you'll have a hard time finding otherwise. Most if not all of those things exist thanks to the innovation that happened without price signals, without market competition, and most importantly without private capital. Markets may have capitalised on these innovations, but that just doesn't count as innovation in and of itself. And selling something isn't the same as coming up with it either. As the economist Mariana Mazzucato from the University of Sussex states "Every major technological change in recent years traces most of its funding back to the state, [even] early-stage private sector venture capitalists come in much, much later, after the big breakthroughs have been already made." Adding on to this, a 2016 article from Scientific American states that "Without government support, most basic scientific research will never happen." The majority, or dare we say even all of the things we've become so close with, came out of government-funded public sector projects, not the private sector. Funding came from either the public, from the government, or from the military. It hasn't been the dynamics of the market so much as active state intervention that has fueled technological change. It isn't capitalism who we can thank for these innovations, it's public funding, the type that's massively bolstered and supported under socialism.
@@seanpol9863 yes, all of what you say is true, but you didn't cover the part where both, say, USA and USSR are/were capable of big breakthroughs for military or the space race and whatnot, but USA's system also manages to perfect and bring these big breakthroughs to the masses, mostly through the market. For example, even the EU countries are having problems with getting useful innovations to the masses, even though there's ample university funding. I've heard it's because of stricter regulations and limits for universities to deal with private actors (i.e. interactions with the market) and the military, strictures which are much less prevalent in USA. But as my main point I'll say this - the thread starter lamented the "late capitalism" and its failings, which I already countered somewhat. But as you pointed out, a lot of what I countered the starting argument with was made possible through public funding. Which means "late capitalism" is capitalism that has already morphed into something else, in part by subsuming what you called socialist policies. Frankly, to me that seems to indicate "capitalism's" (which isn't really just capitalism anymore) evolution and unwavering strength. Good luck trying to replace that, i.e. this status quo, with something empirically better and more capable of survival.
@@LVArturs However, there has never been a stage in the history of capitalism where it has been without government. From its earliest days to the present capitalism has always been obsessed about government, always deeply intertwined with government, always involved in getting favours and subsidies and breaks from governments, always busy trying to shape what governments are, what they do and how they work. However, a capitalism without government is a utopian fantasy, it's never been there. In the earliest days of capitalism, the capitalists even fought against the government they were angry at because it was dominated by the feudal lords who were the dominant group before capitalists got there. The fight for parliament, the fight for democracy, the fight for elections instead of monarchies and feudal lord dominance was the capitalist plan to get a government that would serve them which they got punctuated by the American and French revolutions when they got it in a violent way, and ever since then capitalists, because they gather into their hands the wealth of society, have been the dominant influence on politicians who depend on that wealth to run for office, to rise in the ranks of their political parties. And they, the politicians, need the help, the support, the money, the prestige that comes from the capitalist class.
@@LVArturs More capable of survival? You do realize that not even the Keynesian consensus was able to correct the fundamental contradictions of capitalism such as the falling rate of profit. Combine this general tendency with the climate crisis and you have a disaster that will be in such great magnitude unseen thus far in history. Today, there is an even more larger mass of fictitious capital holding up this crumbling world than ever before and it will result in a catastrophic collapse of credit much like in 1929 inaugurating a depression. If you think replacing the status quo is difficult, think of how challenging it will be to maintain the current affair of things given the circumstances that are facing it. There will be nowhere left to run.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Let's say you have two competing car companies. They both pay their laborers the same. One company's consultants decide to put the car's seats in backwards, so everyone is having to look over their shoulders all the time. The effort, and the time needed, to put these seats in backwards, is exactly the same as putting them in facing forward. Will these cars now have identical value, when sold?
@@lochnessmunster1189 socially necessary labor time means only useful labor. Putting parts backwards is not useful. According to Marx, in order for goods to be sold (to have their value realized) they must contain use-value. Cars that cannot be driven do not contain any use-value. Of course its possible that some company can develop a slightly better car using the same exact amount of labor. In that case, that company will have an advantage. They can even increase their price. However, socially necessary labor time (the time it takes to develop a product and produce products) is determined by the societal average. Its not determined by individual exceptions. Some exceptions will always happen.
PLEASEEEEEEE consider doing a more in-depth video on anarchism, i can't stand them insulting lenin left and right, it would also be a good thing to do a video on Rose and explain why she is wrong
Hello, @TheFinnishBolshevik, do you fancy making a podcast episode about Brazil and the recent defeat xtreme right genocide Jir Bolsonro with Lula's victory to fight starvation of 30 milion people? Kiitos
Do you foresee the restoration of the Soviet Union? We need some force to credibly stand against Western Imperialism, lest it continue to lead the world towards its own extinction.
Can all in left YT please start educating people about both the: (1) difference between right-authoritarian vs. right-libertarian; & (2) difference between left-authoritarian vs left-libertarian? It’s long overdue. People aren’t cattle or sheep: They will understand if we educate them. Though we need to educate (& learn) about all the nuance.
What're you talking about? You realize that's like, "political compass" stuff, right? Which was apparently created by a right "libertarian"? It's not very reflective of reality in many cases. Right "libertarians" often aren't very "libertarian," whether more directly, or because what they want economically (privatization, defunding, deregulation) leads to even worse outcomes for the vast majority. Plus, capitalism in general necessitates conflict/war at this stage (imperialism). Not to mention the very real right "libertarian" to fascist pipeline. You know this is a Marxist-Leninist channel, right? People who subscribe to this kind of "political compass" thinking tend to put us in the "authoritarian" left. Which is stupid. The way "authoritarian" is used is typically nonsense (when applied to the left). Left "libertarianism" tends to fall apart in practice, too, bringing people back under the capitalist boot. And the right, no matter what kind of rightist it is, are opposed to the left in general. Why should we be concerned about this in the first place, even putting aside the fact it doesn't make sense? Just saying.
@@slipknotboy555 It doesn’t matter who created it, that’s an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. This is true to my knowledge: The recently discovered 2-axis political model is the most logical, empirically sound & practical political model humanity has atm. You can’t refute that, this is what reason shows
@@slipknotboy555 Just research this more, you’re missing the knowledge. *In researching these distinctions on the right, this is the most important question to guide leftists in their learning:* How do you distinguish economic fascism from economic capitalism?? We live in economic fascism now. We are nowhere near *neither* free-market capitalism _nor_ socialism. _Actually_ reading the true right libertarians is how you learn this. And therefore how one _actually_ & substantially & practically helps the working class by Praxis. Instead of the empty talk without effective practice of mainstream “leftists”.
@@slipknotboy555 My best definition of economic fascism is any time any government props up any particular company/person in any market, at the expense of all others in that same market. It’s basically the government being anti-free market, and helping certain companies towards achieving monopoly/oligopoly. This is the economy we have now, in nearly all markets. And especially in the US. It’s incredibly anti-working class, in addition to being anti-free market.
Each episode of the series will discuss important topics of Marxist political economy. The video covers the following topics:
-Commodity production
-Value, use-value and exchange-value
-Socially necessary labor time
-Simple and complex labor
As always, great video comrade. How many more of these do you plan to make? I'm learning A LOT from this series! Thanks
@@hugoltsp In the series I'm gonna go through the entire book and probably more
Idiocy in action! but hey you are maybe making money for doing nothing but adding rot to the brains of lemmings!
@@bige2220 huh?
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 😁
My understanding is this - from the standpoint of the dialectic of capital, the value of a commodity its marketability for the seller, whereas the use-value of a commodity is its utility to buyer. To this end, the inner logic of the commodity presupposes a social relation of private individuals who buy and sell commodities on a market to satisfy their needs, whatever may be their nature. For a commodity to be realized as value for the seller, it must be exchangable for another commodity which the seller desires. However, the seller of a commodity is indifferent to the use-value of the commodity they want to sell, so the exchange-value of a commodity can only be realized through the value-form, which ignores the use-value content of any commodity that is sold. This in turn necessitates a universal commodity called money that reflects the value of all commodities (within a market), but does not have a specific use-value of its own (beyond being a means of purchase).
If money is a commodity, then it also must have an independent existence from the market as idle funds, which is to say that it can function as a store of value in entering / exiting circulation. This activity enables any commodity-owner to be a merchant if they so choose, where the name of the game is to buy cheap and sell dear, to earn as much money as possible.
The very process of valorization (augmentation of value) is capital itself, whereby "equivalent" exchange is reduced to a petty matter of "gambling" over funds currently in circulation. However, this gamble is nevertheless qualitatively restricted to the use-values of the commodities which are flipped, which to some degree involves the discernment of buyers. Valorization via money-lending is an attempt at circumventing the mediation of use-values, but all it can do is intercept and parasitize existing mercantile profit. It is *only* with the genesis of industrial capital in purchasing means of production and labor-power as commodities that the use-value restriction to capital is overcome. The law of value ensures the unity of capitalist production on the condition that labor-power is a commodity, which permits the market allocation of labor across firms in socially necessary quantities.
Very interesting.
Another interesting point-
"Still, circulation of commodities can take place without physical motion by them, and there can be transportation of products without circulation of commodities, and even without a direct exchange of products. A house sold by A to B does not wander from one place to another, although it circulates as a commodity. Movable commodity-values, such as cotton or pig iron, may lie in the same storage dump at a time when they are passing through dozens of circulation processes, are bought and resold by speculators.[17] What really does move here is the title of ownership in goods, not the goods themselves. On the other hand, transportation played a prominent role in the land of the Incas, although the social product neither circulated as a commodity nor was distributed by means of barter."
- Capital Volume II
Hi Finbol, a long time ago, like maybe 2 months ago, you had asked for information books on Bulgaria when it was socialist. I told you I had a good book in Spanish, but I did not give you the name. The book is named, " Conoce Usted a Bulgaria" it is a good book that analysis all aspects of Bulgaria economically, socially, politically, and geographically.
Thanks
Awesome work , man ♥️♥️
Use-value: utility
Exchange-Value: Exchange ratio
Value: social labor
Great video! Will definitely use this to share with new people interested in Marxism.
Thank you for this! Very informative!
I’ve been fascinated with marxism over the past few months and your channel was recommended. Best recommendation ever
Yes he is great. You should check our Marxist Paul and Hakim too!
@@Octoberfurst I definitely will thanks for the recommendation
@@Louisiana_Wendigo The labor theory of value: that labor isn't paid the full compensation for its effort: isn't correct.
Constructive criticism: value is not "how much social labour is required to produce a commodity".
When we see exchange value, i.e, that quantitative relation between 5 potatos and one table, we see that they are equivalent in that relation. If you say "I exchange 5 potatos for 1 table", you are saying 5 potatoes=one table. And we know that for two things to be equal, they need to have something in common that makes them comparable ("you cannot add apple to oranges"). That third thing, that atribute that makes different use values exchangable, is value.
"Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things - in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third."
Only after that Marx procedes with the investigation of what determines value ( abstract socially necessary labour time realize in a private and independent manner). If we reduce value to its mere quantitative aspect (socially necessary labour time), we haven't go nor even a step forward from what classical political economy did.
Value is the representation of abstract socially necessary labour time realize in a private and independent manner, i.e, the exchangeability atribute, i.e, what makes use values exchangeable.
I love all your videos but i find it hard to find time to watch them all have you ever considered uploading them to spotify?
isn't spotify audio only?
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 yea but it would still be nice for uploading the theory
can i throw a question out ? did the german communists have anything to do with getting lenin to russia for the revolution?
Pretty sure it was the German leaders at the time that told the kaiser the sending the Bolsheviks to Russia would cause chaos and pull Russia out of the war, so long story short German Marxist didn't do much
Thanks for these. Late capitalism really needs its own video. I think the progressive function has ceased for a while. The capitalist system has stagnated in terms of developing technology, except for ways of extracting rent, financial trickery and surveillance. The first two things being like termites eating away at the very foundations of the house it rests upon, and yet it has weapons to maintain control and end all life and in my opinion much it would rather end all life than relinquish power.
How about AI? The ever increasing computer processing speeds? Recent progress in gene editing? The RNA vaccines? Reusable spacecraft? Satellite internet? Recent developments in small nuclear reactors? The advent of electric vehicles? 5G networking?
@@LVArturs
To be fair though capitalism doesn't in fact make anything. Labour does, i.e. workers do. The '-ism' (and that includes socialism) merely determines who has control of the means of production and who gets paid. In fact, most of the technology present in the those thing you've pointed out originated in the state sector, not the so-called 'free market.' I think you'll have a hard time finding otherwise. Most if not all of those things exist thanks to the innovation that happened without price signals, without market competition, and most importantly without private capital.
Markets may have capitalised on these innovations, but that just doesn't count as innovation in and of itself. And selling something isn't the same as coming up with it either.
As the economist Mariana Mazzucato from the University of Sussex states
"Every major technological change in recent years traces most of its funding back to the state, [even] early-stage private sector venture capitalists come in much, much later, after the big breakthroughs have been already made."
Adding on to this, a 2016 article from Scientific American states that
"Without government support, most basic scientific research will never happen."
The majority, or dare we say even all of the things we've become so close with, came out of government-funded public sector projects, not the private sector. Funding came from either the public, from the government, or from the military. It hasn't been the dynamics of the market so much as active state intervention that has fueled technological change. It isn't capitalism who we can thank for these innovations, it's public funding, the type that's massively bolstered and supported under socialism.
@@seanpol9863 yes, all of what you say is true, but you didn't cover the part where both, say, USA and USSR are/were capable of big breakthroughs for military or the space race and whatnot, but USA's system also manages to perfect and bring these big breakthroughs to the masses, mostly through the market. For example, even the EU countries are having problems with getting useful innovations to the masses, even though there's ample university funding. I've heard it's because of stricter regulations and limits for universities to deal with private actors (i.e. interactions with the market) and the military, strictures which are much less prevalent in USA.
But as my main point I'll say this - the thread starter lamented the "late capitalism" and its failings, which I already countered somewhat. But as you pointed out, a lot of what I countered the starting argument with was made possible through public funding. Which means "late capitalism" is capitalism that has already morphed into something else, in part by subsuming what you called socialist policies. Frankly, to me that seems to indicate "capitalism's" (which isn't really just capitalism anymore) evolution and unwavering strength. Good luck trying to replace that, i.e. this status quo, with something empirically better and more capable of survival.
@@LVArturs
However, there has never been a stage in the history of capitalism where it has been without government. From its earliest days to the present capitalism has always been obsessed about government, always deeply intertwined with government, always involved in getting favours and subsidies and breaks from governments, always busy trying to shape what governments are, what they do and how they work. However, a capitalism without government is a utopian fantasy, it's never been there.
In the earliest days of capitalism, the capitalists even fought against the government they were angry at because it was dominated by the feudal lords who were the dominant group before capitalists got there. The fight for parliament, the fight for democracy, the fight for elections instead of monarchies and feudal lord dominance was the capitalist plan to get a government that would serve them which they got punctuated by the American and French revolutions when they got it in a violent way, and ever since then capitalists, because they gather into their hands the wealth of society, have been the dominant influence on politicians who depend on that wealth to run for office, to rise in the ranks of their political parties. And they, the politicians, need the help, the support, the money, the prestige that comes from the capitalist class.
@@LVArturs More capable of survival? You do realize that not even the Keynesian consensus was able to correct the fundamental contradictions of capitalism such as the falling rate of profit. Combine this general tendency with the climate crisis and you have a disaster that will be in such great magnitude unseen thus far in history. Today, there is an even more larger mass of fictitious capital holding up this crumbling world than ever before and it will result in a catastrophic collapse of credit much like in 1929 inaugurating a depression. If you think replacing the status quo is difficult, think of how challenging it will be to maintain the current affair of things given the circumstances that are facing it. There will be nowhere left to run.
I sometimes wonder why value is based on labor time and not, say, calories used by the workers or some other measurement.
Calories at least measure more physical labor while even manual labor also involves brains.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Why is value based on labor time? That makes little sense.
@@lochnessmunster1189 Why does it make little sense? Value is based on the amount of socially necessary labor, which is easily measured by time.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Let's say you have two competing car companies. They both pay their laborers the same. One company's consultants decide to put the car's seats in backwards, so everyone is having to look over their shoulders all the time. The effort, and the time needed, to put these seats in backwards, is exactly the same as putting them in facing forward. Will these cars now have identical value, when sold?
@@lochnessmunster1189 socially necessary labor time means only useful labor. Putting parts backwards is not useful. According to Marx, in order for goods to be sold (to have their value realized) they must contain use-value. Cars that cannot be driven do not contain any use-value.
Of course its possible that some company can develop a slightly better car using the same exact amount of labor. In that case, that company will have an advantage. They can even increase their price. However, socially necessary labor time (the time it takes to develop a product and produce products) is determined by the societal average. Its not determined by individual exceptions. Some exceptions will always happen.
finnish gigachad
PLEASEEEEEEE
consider doing a more in-depth video on anarchism, i can't stand them insulting lenin left and right, it would also be a good thing to do a video on Rose and explain why she is wrong
Hello, @TheFinnishBolshevik, do you fancy making a podcast episode about Brazil and the recent defeat xtreme right genocide Jir Bolsonro with Lula's victory to fight starvation of 30 milion people? Kiitos
Do you foresee the restoration of the Soviet Union? We need some force to credibly stand against Western Imperialism, lest it continue to lead the world towards its own extinction.
It would require Putin to be ousted first. He stops any other movement in its tracks.
What exactly is "western imperialism" and how exactly is it going to lead the world "towards its own extinction"? What are you talking about?
what is western imperialism?
nice
What
incredible work
Can all in left YT please start educating people about both the: (1) difference between right-authoritarian vs. right-libertarian; & (2) difference between left-authoritarian vs left-libertarian? It’s long overdue. People aren’t cattle or sheep: They will understand if we educate them.
Though we need to educate (& learn) about all the nuance.
Not this mf again
What're you talking about? You realize that's like, "political compass" stuff, right? Which was apparently created by a right "libertarian"? It's not very reflective of reality in many cases. Right "libertarians" often aren't very "libertarian," whether more directly, or because what they want economically (privatization, defunding, deregulation) leads to even worse outcomes for the vast majority. Plus, capitalism in general necessitates conflict/war at this stage (imperialism). Not to mention the very real right "libertarian" to fascist pipeline. You know this is a Marxist-Leninist channel, right? People who subscribe to this kind of "political compass" thinking tend to put us in the "authoritarian" left. Which is stupid. The way "authoritarian" is used is typically nonsense (when applied to the left).
Left "libertarianism" tends to fall apart in practice, too, bringing people back under the capitalist boot. And the right, no matter what kind of rightist it is, are opposed to the left in general. Why should we be concerned about this in the first place, even putting aside the fact it doesn't make sense? Just saying.
@@slipknotboy555 It doesn’t matter who created it, that’s an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy.
This is true to my knowledge: The recently discovered 2-axis political model is the most logical, empirically sound & practical political model humanity has atm. You can’t refute that, this is what reason shows
@@slipknotboy555 Just research this more, you’re missing the knowledge.
*In researching these distinctions on the right, this is the most important question to guide leftists in their learning:*
How do you distinguish economic fascism from economic capitalism??
We live in economic fascism now. We are nowhere near *neither* free-market capitalism _nor_ socialism. _Actually_ reading the true right libertarians is how you learn this. And therefore how one _actually_ & substantially & practically helps the working class by Praxis. Instead of the empty talk without effective practice of mainstream “leftists”.
@@slipknotboy555 My best definition of economic fascism is any time any government props up any particular company/person in any market, at the expense of all others in that same market. It’s basically the government being anti-free market, and helping certain companies towards achieving monopoly/oligopoly. This is the economy we have now, in nearly all markets. And especially in the US. It’s incredibly anti-working class, in addition to being anti-free market.
lmaoooooo