What Marx Got Wrong | Jordan B Peterson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Capitalism, the Pareto distribution and what Marx got wrong. The distribution of wealth follows a Pareto pattern with the top 1 percent changing. It's not the same people, it's the same proportion of people at the top, but that's different.
The full video:
• Lecture: Biblical Seri...
Want to support this channel?
Patreon: / jordanbpeterson
Relevant Links: JB Peterson
Online Psychological Programs:
NEW: BFAS Personality Assessment: www.understandm...
Self Authoring: selfauthoring.com/
Books:
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterso....
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterso....
Jordan Peterson Website: jordanbpeterson...
Podcast: jordanbpeterson....
Reading List: jordanbpeterson....
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
I was born in USSR. Goods were distributed firstly to party bureaucracy, then to their closest friends/asskissers and only then to the workers that were willing to go through the hoops. Also if you were born in bureaucratic family, you almost always end up in it as well through the power of nepotism.
So it was the same as in capitalism, only without any hope for the workers to advance in social hierarchy and with parasitic bureaucracy instead of the businessmen.
Irony How long did you stay in the USSR? Were you in there when Yeltsin had it dissolved?
perfectly said. it's the natural outcome for any society where the public sector takes excessive power. where you don't have the monopolists in business, you have the monopoly of the bureaucrats. and the second one is actually the one that causes the largest inequality.
That is not Marxism. Trotsky was right.
It is the inevitable result of Marxist ideology. Human beings are flawed. You cannot make a perfect system out of a collection of flawed parts. A system that only works if its perfect is doomed to failure from the start.
Apply your logic to capitalism. Human beings are flawed. Humans compose capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is flawed. I guess all this global inequality is the inevitable result of capitalist ideology. Thanks for proving my point Scott!
Marx should've cleaned his room.
I once heard that Karl's mother quoted. If Carl would have paid more attention to making money than writing about it we would all be better off.
I don't get it, my son.
@@garycarlisle7810 If this phrase is real is gold
@@MeeMesmo Yep I agree.
From his writings, and the writings of those who knew him, he should have learned to bathe as well.
I can't believe Jordan Peterson stole my idea of uploading Jordan Peterson clips.
"ha! Gotcha!"- Jordan B Peterson in an interview with Cathy Newman
That bastard!
you had me at the first half, not gonna lie
We already know that from uploading Feynman clips.
@@joshuhigashikata9201 So, you're saying...
What Jordan is challenging here is not the observations of Marx in their entirety, no, Marx observed many of the thousands of variables, Jordan is to smart to attack the variables. Here he is attacking the thesis of Marx.
He is saying that inequality is independent of the principle of Capitalism.
Inequality is the human condition. To pretend that everyone is equal in matter of intelligence, determination, and level of skill is to ignore individuality. Not everyone has the intelligence and skills and determination to be a doctor, or physicist, or chemist, which is why the supply of them is low and they command much higher salary BECAUSE they are less common than people capable of flipping hamburgers. When people are no longer rewarded for excelling, growth and incentives are stifled. Why would you spend 8 years to go to medical school when a bus driver gets paid more than doctor? (what happened in Soviet Union and Cuba)
@Sasha Da Masta say one
You are right in principle, but there's more to it. The problem arises when the salary of a bus driver in a developed country is greater than that of a doctor in one of the former Soviet block countries. Then, of course, all the good doctors from the Eastern Bloc are going to flee to the West to become bus drivers (if they can't become doctors there), leaving the people behind with substandard healthcare.
@@wyqtor agree, but people should know that áreas with higher salaries or minimum wages are some what adapted to the region's living standards. You can earn the big bucks living in NY, but that takes into account the huge cost renting a house is and transportation . So pretty much in most cases you end up being "even". And if a country is getting short on professionals due to poor salaries, that the country's market fault, not the professional.
Petersons analysis is garbage. Marx has repeatedly stated that he was never an egalitarian, and that his entire conception of socialism is NOT based on abstract notions of "equality". He simply wants the workers to own the means of production. Peterson is arguing against a strawman, its embarrassing.
Marx was a 19th century economist. Economics was just starting then. He took a pretty good swag at some things but you can hardly expect him to get very much right considering.
He was pretty damn wrong about a lot of things, I understand what you mean, but his ideas didn't survive till today because he took a pretty good swag at some things, it's because it's possibility to validate envy and frustration as a consecuence of an unfair system of explotation
@@horacio373 Throwing out ideas is how things are worked out. You throw out a set of ideas and see if they work. That is the intellectual process. That is what I mean by taking a swag. As I said, he didn't get much right. However, that is true of most 19th century economists. Occasionally, someone got something right. You can think Adam Smith and markets for a good example, but most didn't. The problem with Marx's ideas is instead of just dying a natural death, they became a sort of religion and religions never die no matter how silly they may be.
@@horacio373 Some of his ideas are still prevalent in today's society. One of the reasons why hard-working working class people don't have to work for 15 hours every day without breaks is precisely because of Marx, because he proposed 8hr workdays.
For those of you who have read the Communist Manifesto, I would just like to state that Marx commented a lot on the changing of the 1% as a historical truth. His fundamental flaw wasn’t that he didn’t believe in that, but that he believed communism would serve to eliminate that.
A similar flaw is that in modern times, each % stratum of the economy is rarely static over time - in fact, a large majority of those in the bottom 25% in the '70s moved up into a higher stratum later in their lives. There is, by definition, always a lower % stratum in the economy, we just have to make sure the opportunities are there for anyone to move up or down as their effort deserves.
It's almost like you haven't heard of the hundreds of millions of people who have been brutally killed under capitalism? More people have died under capitalist control than socialist control. Heard of imperialism? Colonianism?
Maybe Jordan should read more. Marx is far more intellectually correct and intelligent than Peterson, his worldview is far more accurate, educated, stronger, critically thought-out, and literate. It's almost like Jordan Peterson hasn't heard of billionaires and how they exploit the lower classes, how owners and managers take advantage of the workers (who do more work) by paying them the minimum and taking all the fruits of the workers' labour for themselves. Marx criticises selfishness, Peterson condones it.
You're honestly so naive, in fact JBP's whole conservative fanbase is. You don't bother reading about socialism because you think capitalism is better due to these rich psuedointellectuals telling you so. You've made peace with an establishment that doesn't give a shit about you. Karl Marx was far more intelligent to care about his economic position and focus on society's falsified social construction that money and status = success. Marx's success was the mind, the ability to write about an awful society we live in, and that is why he's still spoken about today, not billionaire bankers who have been forgotten in time. Money doesn't define a person, humanitarianism does. Please, educate yourself.
@@novinceinhosic3531 This, thank you.
Wackaz 2.0 just as you communists complain that the death toll of communism is bloated and exaggerated just as anyone who "stubbed there toe was another victim of communism", to quote spooky scary socialist, the same goes for capitalism, the difference is people under communism die from a poor job of allocating resources and basic necessities, and they are malnourished and die, as we can see in the Kazakh famine under the soviet union, or the great leap forward in china, whereas we in capitalist societies die because we have luxury goods and we eat fatty foods, we did cause we Longwood lives, plus you literally have no data on your assertion, and simply spout something and therefore it is valid, which is a fallacy of proof by assertion, and imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism, capitalism is just a mode of production and distribution, imperialism is in short to conquest and pillage
I think there are more common traits with communism and imperialism/colonialism than capitalism. Me living in a country that experienced it for 333 years, knows this for sure. What does imperialists/colonialists do?
- conscripts people
- force labor with no promise of pay or return
-taking resources from colonized (satellite) countries
- make sure those colonized (satellite) countries don't get as much freedom as the main country, altho the main country doesnt have much anyway.
- making sure majority of the common people are workers for the government and not necessarily for themselves.
- govt is made up of a few men which never contested internally
- you speak up against the king/govt you will surely be punished, either thrown in dungeons (gulags) and forgotten forever, or "rightful" execution
- common people doesn't own the land, and the land is essentially under the control of the govt
Sure there are a few elements of capitalism in colonialism and imperialism, but not the free trade that we want. I am living in a previously colonized country, and what the colonizers will first do to the community is strip off of their property and title, making them effectively a commoner, unless you serve a special purpose for them, like an interpreter, or you get them to trust you so well, they will leave you in charge of a certain community.
Marx knew full well that massive wealth inequality was common to all existing forms of society (with the exception on some small communistic tribal societies). This is why he described all hitherto existing societies as 'class societies', divided into distinct social lasses; the vast majority who produce, and the elite minority who extract and dispose of a surplus. His contribution was to tell us how this class domination functions in capitalist society specifically.
Agreed. Petterson is an interesting guy but his analysis of Marxism is crude and lacking depth. Though as a former active Marxist I largely agree with his critiques of the modern SJW left and was unsurprisingly appalled by their treatment of him re-Bill C-16 even if he drew a lot of wrong conclusions.
@@JJaguar333 Marxism is a horrible ideology that has lead to mass death and starvation of millions.
@@JJaguar333
Just a thought experiment. Let’s imagine your perfect Marxist utopia.
let’s picture two factory workers in this utopia. One factory worker buys a six pack of beer and drinks it every day on the way home. The other buys a small piece of gold and puts it in a safe on the way home. 30 years go by the same way. Now one of them has a bunch of gold the other has no gold. The one with gold decided he is going to buy a bunch of factory equipment and start producing farm equipment. The other just keeps working.
My question to all you Marxists is.
Is he allowed to buy factory machinery that will produce a product that he can sell? Is that allowed in your utopia? Be specific this is important you are designing a system for humanity. Can he sell his product? Can he set his prices? Can he hire workers?This is a real scenario that will come up in real life if we were to implement your utopia. Let’s hear what you would do Choose wisely.
@@stuckinthemud4352 In a planned economy democratically controlled by the workers, not a state capitalist command economy like the Soviet Union under Stalin, more than enough farm equipment would be produced to meet the needs of the economy. This is because it would function for the real world economic demands of workers themselves, so any shortage in equipment would be relayed to planning councils from the farms and factories. If the guy horded gold and produced more equipment and then sold it to the rest of the workers then great, provided he didn’t make himself enormously wealthy. And if he did what would be the point? The workers councils would provide everyone with a house and basic necessities anyhow. If he wants an extra few toys then fine. But most likely other people wouldn’t need to work for him because they would already be working, probably a significantly shorter work week than we have under capitalism. Obviously you haven’t actually read much Marx, or looked at alternative societies that function on more of an egalitarian non-capitalist framework. For instance Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war, the Zapatistas in Mexico, indigenous societies, the early phase of the Russian revolution of 1917-21, ect ect. Marxism is a scientific political philosophy. It’s a useful analysis of how society works. It’s not perfect but it is what it is. As an intellectual tool it’s useful but that’s about it.
@@JJaguar333 so he can sell equipment but he can’t buy it?
I can imagine Jordan laughing to himself while picking that thumbnail lol
Bru Master Hahaha! Yeah, although I am pretty sure he don’t edit and upload the videos himself. He has people for that kind og stuff
Is this an official channel of JB
This isn’t his channel. This is someone uploading clips of him.
I picture him crying for humanity
@@buffen2496 Two statements where Marx was wrong, by Jordan Peterson:
1 "In capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Also Jordan Peterson: "well he was right about that"
2 "The rich people change over time" also, Thomas Piketty, "more people get rich by inheriting than by making it for themselves..."
Ugh so basically hes just saying "Marx was right but I dont want him to be"
This dude never brings anything new to the table.
@@stomio6491 Yes we were deaf the last time he spoke
I love how contrapoints puts it, JP says the right thing but with context it's absurd, yeah things growing bigger and bigger collapse but what does it mean in this conversation, what would collapse? there are no examples, same with the water thing yes what he says is true but then we see the context and, nope the top 1-10% stay the same they might go inside or outside the bracket but still the same
do you not speak english commy
@@themushroom2130 Or maybe you can’t comprehend.
As far as I understand communism is a societal state in which each member of society contributes the entirety of their labor to a common inventory which each member of society has equal access to. If that is the case can I take more than I contribute to the common inventory? If true that means someone else is left with less than he contributed in which case why would that person want to be part of a communist society? Can I only take as much as I contribute? if that is the case why be part of a communist society in the first place?
I can answer that, but don't take it as a defence of Marxism as there is much wrong with Marxism.
What you are describing is the same as insurance. A few people take far more in payout than they ever put in and almost everybody else puts in far more than they take out. Why would they do that? The answer is shared risk. That is, nobody can predict what misfortunes will happen to them and catastrophic misfortune can permanently ruin individuals and families. Insurance mitigates the risk. It mitigates the risk.
The social equivalent of insurance is the social safety net. It does have significant value in that it allows people to take calculated risks, such as entrepreneurs or getting advanced education. If those were potentially ruinous, that would mean a big barrier to entry and we'd all lose out as few individuals could afford the risk. That's why social safety nets have some value.
But, too much safety also creates a barrier to risk-taking, such as entrepreneurship or education, because if everybody just ends up with the same outcome, access to resources, or value in life, then there is no rational reason to put in the effort of entrepreneurship, greater education, or doing anything that is hard. I wouldn't say Marx was ignorant of that, but it is the other side of the same coin that is often ignored.
Random events or small mistakes can destroy people so safety nets have value, but they aren't the only thing that can keep people from getting ahead. You want a safety net to catch you so that you can get back up easily and try to climb again. But you do want to have something worth climbing in the first place.
Communism has a simple definition - from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. So (in theory) you give what you can and get what you need. That's the definition given by Marx and Engels.
Fred Neecher all we need is food and water, both we can easily obtain ourselves and we did for most of humanity's existence. Right now it's evident that you have more than you need as you're using a phone or a PC, so why are you advocating communism?
Daniel Schegh There's a difference between contributing a small sum of your income and contributing the entirety of your income the same way there's a difference between giving a homeless person 10 bucks so he wouldn't starve and giving him half of your wealth so you're equal.
My understanding of communism/socialism (contrary to what is thought today, both terms were used interchangeably in Marx's day) is _worker control of the means of production,_ or in some definitions _stakeholder control of the means of production._ So socialism is not actually a system of _distribution,_ it is rather a way of organising _production_ (this is why later classical "British" liberals, like John Stuart Mill for example, were _market socialists;_ a market is a system of distribution, socialism a system of production, and it is, at the very least, conceptually possible to match up the two systems).
Marx never talked about the rich and the poor. He wrote about the owners of the means of production and the urban working class.
Learn that already!
that just mean you are ignorant about it , you should LEARN more from this great man yourself , a man who have spent 40years of his life studying this subject before criticize him , someone like you who probably only read the grandlines of those "books " of marx that you hypotheticaly read
@@meriemcullen8510 nope, no rich and poor in Marx. Sorry, but your guru is completely wrong. He should know something so basic.
Wow, so much movement in the 1%. Can't wait for my turn to move there.
only if you're good enough
Bruh create something like Google or the iPhone, then you can get there.
@The Dissident75 thats true. in this age not only do you need genuine innovation, but also a tremendous amount of persistence and luck.
@The Dissident75 well said sir 👍
Not every life is valid because it's in the 1%
That's greed and envy talking.
That's communism talking.
Alot of brilliant, happy people, are content just to work, and have a family, and have good values.
But if you don't work, and allways "dream big", you will be a miserable person your whole life.
And probably join ANTIFA.
It's okay to be Jordan B Peterson
It's ok to B Peterson.
UA-cam Commenter hamberger
Did Marx's ideas presuppose a zero-sum game within Capitalism? It certainly doesn't seem that way with the recent drop in poverty in many parts of the world in particular South East Asia.
@Mike Rocker you can say that government welfare was actually a historical consequence of Marx´s thought, and that regulation in capitalism is actually a contradiction in terms (if we talk about classical liberalism, with its laisser faire). In other words, it is impossible to talk about capitalism this day in classical terms, among other things because there has been, in many areas, an ideological and political osmosis. Capitalism adopted social politics in many countries, to different degrees, and also many communist countries adopted democracy and capitalism as an economic system.
@Mike Rocker The point is: he could not write about what you mean when you say "existing capitalism with government welfare and regulations". Those two things didn´t exist in Marx' times. And they could not exist under a classical liberal economic philosophy. It was because of the political implementation of some of Marx´s ideas that, later down the line, they came to exist polliticallyl. That is the point I was trying to make.
@Mike Rocker nothing like what we have today (public pension systems, public funded education, unemployment pay, and all the like), what we call "welfare state" existed back then. If you were sick, you were screwed, or you had to go to charity institutions or the church. That was simply not something that goverment took care of. There may have been occasional gestures of good faith, like the distribution of grain in ancient Rome for free in times of famine under certain emperors and even before. But still, they were just pollitical gestures, and often with a political intention behind. There was not the social conscience that, if the majority of society experienced hard times, the state HAD TO DO something about it. It just did when the situation went way too far.
We can argue about regulation, it did in fact exist and it has always existed in trade relations. But it is true that the advocation of liberals back at Marx times had tried their best to bring those regulations back to a minimum. They truly believed (and by them, I mean the illustrated who guided monarchs and later governments on economic policies) that the best way to enrich their nation was to follow Adam Smith principles and give free room to trade and eliminate the majority of regulations and obstacles to it as possible. Agreed, there still were regulations, but much, much less compared to the earlier economic periods. I think what Marx was critizising at the time was much less theoretical than we think nowadays. Capitalism has changed a lot along its history: one only needs to read Dickens to realise. Greetings
Frank Kelly its called being 100 years later in time! Progress.
Not capitalism. Duh
@Stephen Hughes Hi, you can certainly say and you can trace it back idelogically: the parties that developped such policies in Europe were "social democratic" parties: the word "social" is there for a reason. In USA, under Reagan, the same policies, or very similar (unemployment payments, active state inversion in the economy, infrastructure, etc.) were promoted by also socialist parties. Sure, we can consider them watered-down versions of Marxism political thoughs, but certainly they are closer in the political spectrum to Marxism than to anything else. The main difference, one could say, is that they gave up on the idea of social revolution in exchange for a system of taxation of wealth and benefit that would grant their socialist policies.
That's not what too big to fail means, Dr Peterson. Too big to fail refers to a bank or a large company that is so large that the IMF (as far as they see it) cannot _allow_ the bank to fail for fear of the financial fallout. Blackrock, for example.
I never thought I'd agree with Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
He didn't mention it specifically but Capitalism expands the distance between the rich and poor to a point and then begins lifting people in the bottom 1% higher as a result. This is why capitalism has lifted the most people out of abject poverty, the rich get richer and bring everyone up slightly with them
The best countries to live in are capitalist. It's not even close. How people can argue with demonstrable standards of living is beyond me.
+Jason Dashney Guilt mostly.
Sounds like the best system in the world lmao 😂😂😂😂
Not exactly, the best countries in the world to live in are Switzerland and some of the Scandinavian countries (like Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland - also Sweden back in the days when they weren't completely crazy with open-borders) and they are more like social democracies than anything else (especially the Nordic countries)
I wouldn't want to live in the more capitalist US with its healthcare and education population rip-off schemes.
That's not nessesarily a byproduct of capitalism but technology . There's are ways you could achieve both
Jordan saying that the spiral is there but the molecules are different ....by which he means that the people that belong to that 1% change ...I think that he is 100% right that the molecules (people) do change but the molecules which replaces them are mostly their successors ...as they inherit that position and wealth plus people only live so long so it's inevitable to change
This is so true. From lobster to celebrities to CEO’s. I’ve always wondered why celebrities get free shit when they can afford it because they’re celebrities. The people who need it the most are ignored and turned away and looked down upon. At first I use to think it was solely because of capitalism and marketing but thanks to Jordan I’m starting to see it as just the natural course of human nature. I’m still reluctant to accept this idea but it’s hard not to take into factor.
Human nature was also to question and reestablish in the face of current systems. Besides, Peterson was literally high on Xanax when he was making these points
A free market allows for this, flushing. Throughout history the bowl gets backed up when monopolies don't want to lose their top spot and become cheaters that prevent the best from getting their opportunity. Then the entire Society loses.
Marx end up being right, and Jordan Peterson contradicts himself , because in his own book he claimed that a study showed that humans lose interest in any activity they can't win 30% of the time, if only 10% of the world population have more than 76% of the world population, that means 76% of people lose in the game of life and more Times than not, don't have any motivation to keep Hustle.
Marx himself never said that stuff like that solely happens in capitalism. He draws comparisons to slavery and feudalism and sees is as a steady development (which is a point a don’t agree with, but still the point remains)
I grew up in a Communist, Socialist society. For 9 years of my life in China.
What kind of questions would you like to know?
From Cultural Revolution to The Great Leap Forward.
I can tell you exactly how farmers with pitchforks (like majority of current U.S. Democrat voters today) took over the country and utterly put it in shambles and behind every other 1st world country for at least 50 years.
I can tell you how many people died during this period of Marx's enlightenment in China, the count is admitted by China officially, it isn't far off of Peterson's estimation.
I can tell you exactly what happens when Marx's doctrines are enacted out, I have friends and relatives that actually survived through it. A lot of them went clinically insane because they couldn't handle that dose of reality. People eating tree barks, belts, boots, anything organic they can find. They'll eat the rotten, the dead. They'll eat themselves they're so hungry. People are publically humiliated with beating, rape, torture while the public masses watched and had to show agreement for it. They were tortured because they were identified as Intellectuals and have a bit of money, basically the productive members of society. Granted some of them are absolutely corrupt, but like an antibiotic pill, the Communists killed off the good AND the bad all for power gain. But of course they were great at disguising it with propaganda, since the dumb Chinese uneducated farmers doesn't think critically or logically at all, they truly believed they worked for the AGENT of good. They had to believe it, other wise, would you scream at your own father, tell him to kneel on the ground while you and your cronies beat the shit out of him for being a "Bourgeois". It was the fucking dark ages I tell ya.
What's worse is that no one knew who was gonna get tortured the next day, it was all random lottery from central command. If you got a number one day, be sure to say goodbye to friends, family and your own sanity because you are going to be publically tortured next, no reason what so ever, it's just your turn because someone didn't like you and maybe snitched on you. Remember the Salem Witch trials? Picture that, but on a National Level...
This whole concept of to each his ability to give, to each his ability to take is absolutely insanity. The Chinese tried it, it fell apart and burned down faster than the Ford Pinto.
They tried this concept during the debt repaying years to Russia. Where Mao and his party gave the dumb masses the idea that you can take regular scrap metals from your kitchen, pots, pans, bowls, spoons, anything you have, that's metal, you donate it to the country, because.. well you don't really own anything..technically. Oh, they were planning to turn those low grade metals to steel, while lacking the necessary technology and machinery to reach the proper temperature for refining that. It's all a fucking joke really, but they actually experimented a communal Food Court. Since no body had cookware left, they donated them all to government, they still had to eat but can no longer cook. So the people all went to a communal Food Court and ate for free. You just walk in with your bowl, and eat as much as you like on whatever is being cooked that day. Uh.. yeah... that lasted for like days? Weeks maybe? Probably more like days when it was ran on a National Level.
Yeah, Marx's ideal says by any means necessary, which to a confused intellectual reading it, means something like I'll talk to you nicely about it, if I don't get my way then I'm bringing the guns (see bill C16). That's no way to solve society problems.
Please... for crying out loud. Do not destroy this country for the very reason immigrants chose to give up their motherland in pursue of real Liberty in America.
Apologies ahead, did not check for spelling or grammar.
The kingdoms and fiefdoms from earlier times also had a continually rotating ruler. Still doesn't make it a system I'd like to live under.
The old systems did not allow much social mobility. Capitalism does. Not everyone makes it. Not everyone can be a millionaire. However capitalism has a much bigger and prosperous middle class.
Some of the practices of old should be implemented today tho. Such as a king that had to lead the armies into battle by positioning himself at the very front, and his sons would be there as well. That made kings in the past to REALLY,REALLY think about it hard before starting any bs wars. That would be awesome today to see the orange dressed in army gear on a plane heading for Iran
@@Sigueme1 Go back. The gulag/shit hole wants you
I am not a fan of Marx but I found something in Dr Peterson's argument.
Statement 1-Once you are successful, your chances for success grows exponentially. The same is with failure.
Statement 2-1% of the population will always hold most of the wealth.
So, in terms of wealth, isn't it safe to say that the 1% owning the lion's share of wealth today have an extraordinarily higher chance of owning it tomorrow?
Kindly edify me if I am wrong.
Das Kapital is not a rant against capitalism, it's an objective study of capitalism, because Marx believed that classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo were biased and their study of capitalism only reflected their burgoise interests, Marx wrote Das Kapital as an "objective" study of capitalism and as a criticism of mainstream economics.
"objective study"
"THE BOURGEOISIE IS OPRESSING THE POOR REEEEEEEEEEE"
sheehan1able and Only Brad have _definitely_ read Capital. "He did not understand the first thing about capitalism" is such a nuanced critique my knees are buckling. I have never read anything smarter than the takeaway from Capital being "'THE BOURGEOISIE IS OPRESSING[sic] THE POOR REEEEEEEEEEE'". That is literally what Marx wrote. Fuck, he put it in quotation marks.
Obviously Marx was wrong because nobody believe in it anymore.
Isn’t that Jordan’s definition of true?
Lol.
The only postmodernists are Peterson and his followers .
There is nothing bias to Ricardo and Smith. Marx gets their conclusion from theirs, they actually saw the system for what it was, they were just counciouss of where they stand. Most people that claim to be libertarians dont understand that the State is a burgueoise invention to adquire and preserve their private property. Its role its exactly the opposite of what minarquist pretend it was invented for. For what I see, you havent actually read Smith or Ricardo becauae they dont try to sugarcote capitalism or moralized it. They just describe it and have some chapters where they describe the inherent problems that it has and how to make it work for them despite of that.
Marx's morality comes from his enlightment inheritance and his conclusions were influenced by Hegel's dialectic . Marx critique of capitalism is what he sought as a logical conclusion. Marx solution to capitalism is derived from his enlightment morality. What Marx was unable to see was the birth of The weathfare state and what Durkhein called the social division of labor. People are just too simple minded or brainwashed to try to get into the stuff because in their view its a waste of time.
He also used the labour theory of value and was himself burgoeise by his own definition.
None of what you said absolves him.
This is a odd tangent but what you’re saying, Jordan, seems to represent how the solar system was formed. How planets or objects are consuming others or being consumed by others.
Aren’t we all on an eventual path to be consumed by other things?
I’m just fertilizer for a more promising world. We all are.
People are just scared whiney assholes.
They can't fathom the inevitable.
Hey guys, I'm a bit agnostic on all this stuff and I'm not sure what to think yet, trying to take in different bits of information from all over the place. He said that regarding human production, equality grows in every system known, not just capitalism. He said that it's like a natural law. I wonder if there's any paper or study on this topic so I can read more about it. Also let me know if I misunderstand. Anyway, thanks in advance!
That's a fair statement towards classical economics. We don't run on classical economics anymore...for a very long time. Even if the case for economics may be in Pareto distribution, Marx talked about the influence of capital on government laws and rules to which power is retained as it is over a period of time. The change of power through wealth that Professor Jordan Peterson talks about is during the economic bust and economic boom cycles, but the aggregation of what corporation does isn't visible today? Amazon, Google, and so many other corporations have so many services that they offer. And even if there are transitions of power, wealth isn't retained by those who are wealthy? Changing the system of Redistribution is changing the system of compensation, in economic terms. We do have the means for calculating that without the given necessity of a market economy. Doctors get paid a certain amount by insurance companies here in the U.S. in which an average salary is calculated. Obviously there are certain outliers with such calculations, but a modern society can do those calculations with out the need of a market.
The problem is not usually with how unfair it is that those wealthy people are wealthy but in exploitation of labor that isn't justified in such undignified way between laborer and owner... Capitalism was meant to be a stepping stone away from Feudalism in which laborers had a contract. Purchase power is also required in this assessment as a requirement of production and consumption of commodities. This whole equal distribution of wages and payment isn't Marx... It's simply propaganda. Even in the USSR, there was no one wage that was paid for every person. It's funny how people labeled this absurd a 150 years ago when they believed that to reach everyone's basic need was so preposterous. Marx perceived that we don't need a market within a system that moves beyond capital where all preconditions are met. Without this presupposed market system and its interpolations of consumption, production, and competition, labor and commodities can be calculated. Without the need of corporate commerce serving as economic indicators of growth and wealth, a system without such corporations would work fairly well and would have the capacity to provide basic necessities to those in need.
Are you sure you have read Marx, professor Peterson?
It's amazing how J.P. can criticize Marx without having red a full line from any work of Marx.
He has read Marx. I don't know how many of the books, but I do know that your criticism is factually incorrect.
Besides, is the theoretical material produced by the father of Communism as important as the reality of what happened when dozens of different countries tried different methods of applying it to the real world?
@@warrioroflight6872 so jow he misses the basics of marxism?
@@warrioroflight6872 I myself am born in a quite "not marxist friendly" place, in a working class family not much interested in marxism, because social policies were already implemented in our nation. So i knew marxism only through mainstream criticism, usally some generic quotes used by detractors and i never felt dissatisfied enough to go and check. When i started to actuallt read Marx, from the last two years of university (where i studied there was some marxist activism, quite marginal indeed) i found that the mainstream criticism i red was quite deceiving. That is my problem with JP, after having experienced the large discrepancies between such mainstream criticism and the actual marxism, i recognize in JP all i found in the first, like JP never even tried to read more than that material. He looks like a simple repeater, a powerful one, but still just repeating words without an actual dialogue with the source material, wich is Marx... he can be considered successful into criticize SOME later re-interpretations of SOME themes of marxism (a broken clock can tell the right time twice per day, they say), but the main argument from JP is into betting that his audience will never study Marx.
@@mavrospanayiotis have you red the Gulag Archipelago?
@@philippkonig6662 not yet, it's on my "long" reading list. I still have got some books to "digest" 😉 finishing Huysmans' "À Rebours" after Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" and "A Guide for the Perplexed", then i'm going to read "The Togliatti Amnesty" (for recent Italian Communist party's worst history), Federico Caffe's "Modern Economists"... and "Theologia Platonica" by Proclus is watching me with impatience from my bedside table...
Almost right, however he contradicts himself a bit: if your success increases your chances of further success, then it will be almost always the same people, as a rule, unless they suddenly screw up, as an exception. Too large systems can collapse, sure, but he said it himself: great movement within the wealthiest one percent... Why should the 99% care about that?
Too big to fail meant the banks were so big and important to the economy as a whole that they could not be allowed to fail so governments would have to bail them out with our money [taxes, debt, QE] if they became insolvent, and that is exactly what happened. The error of Brown and Greenspan was to allow them to buy too much US real estate using too much debt.
What is the piano music at the end?
Elton John, Social Disease
I love JP an all but 2 years after this he admitted to not even having read Marx in 40 years, thats ridiculous considering he talks about it so much
@James Passmore So 3 little pigs, Mein Kampf, the Bible, The communist Manifesto are all at the same level of understanding?
@James Passmore I'm saying you can read a book 40 years ago and have a clear understanding of it if it was as simple as a children's book. But I don't think anyone can argue that the communist manifesto is very complex text. If I wanna learn about Marxism, I'm best to stick with someone who's acc studied the book thoroughly.
@James Passmore no problem
Isn't it simply the compound effect that causes this distribution?
He states that societal ineuqality is natural, like a physical law. Big wow. Like nobody ever pulled that argument.
Two things:
1) If accepting the assumption that distribution of wealth follows the Pareto Distribution in modern societies, this says nothing about the question how skewed the distribution should (or can) be. Social Democratic politics aims at "flattening the curve", neoliberal politics aims at steepening it.
2) If the assumption about modern societies is true, it only says something about modern societies. In contrary to what Peterson states, Marx's argument goes like this: Capitalism is the preliminary peak of an economic system that emerged with agricultural production, and which produces inequality alright (or pareto distribution of societies, using the words from the video). He rightly attributes the dynamics leading to inequality to the consequences of the principle of property, and in consequence questions the principle of property. The hypothesis is that societies that are not based on the principle of property can be equal. The emerging dispute is up to this date on how to overcome the inequality-producing mode of society and reach a next level past private property. Revolutionary Marxist politics aim at reaching this next level by force. Obviously their strategies were wrong, as it did not produce free societies.
The argument that something is a "natural" property of human society is always problematic and seldomnly true. On a sidenote, the notion of "natural" human features can lead down a very dark path. Just like the notion that sensible discussions on youtube are possible.
“It’s a feature of all systems of creative production that are known”
This is literally what Marx said. Ever read his writings on the “predatory phase of humanity”?
He also said the predatory phase of humanity could not last forever and would end when the capitalist mode of production had been fully phased out, after the means of production were fully developed. And he gave reasons for why he believed that. Which Peterson doesn’t address. Which means JP’s argument isn’t really a refutation of Marxism at all.
“The 1% isn’t always the same people“
What does this matter? Of course the 1% is replaced constantly. That doesn’t change the fact that most wealth does invariably end up in the hands of the 1%. Does he think Marxists believe rich people live forever?
If you agree that wealth begets wealth, and that it’s easier to make money if you already have money (which, I hope, is obvious), then you already agree with Marx on capital accumulation. It’s a straightforward idea.
It’s kind of strange that someone can make a living critiquing an ideology that they don’t have an even passable understanding of.
Genuinly interested in your response; why would a form of marxism be better than capitalism if we conclude that the paretto principle would be applied in both scenarios? (Not looking for debate, you seem to be one of the 1% of people on the internet who actually understands marx instead of just shouting “redistribute the means of production”)
@@christiangregan9996 Happy to have a discussion with you!
"why would a form of marxism be better than capitalism if we conclude that the paretto principle would be applied in both scenarios?"
Marxism is not a socioeconomic system, rather, it is a theory of how socioeconomic systems evolve over time and are phased out as humanity develops. It's a very broad "systems theory", not itself a proposed system. People mistake Marx for an anti-capitalist, rather, he knew capitalism played a vital role in the development of humanity. Most of his later work centered around the fact that capitalism should not necessarily be "overthrown", but that capitalism would be forced to develop through a socialist phase and into the communist mode of production regardless of what people believed, as technology developed. So Marxism isn't exactly opposed to capitalism. I would call myself a Marxist, and while I don't think capitalism can last forever (or even for another century), I think we should try to keep it alive for as long as possible to maximize technological progress. But "keeping capitalism alive" necessarily requires a socialist transition.
As for the Pareto principle, Marx would agree with Jordan Peterson, believe it or not. My problem is with JP claiming that Marx was "wrong" about it, when it makes up a significant part of Marx's theory. The idea that wealth accumulates, which causes a collapse, followed by a reorganization of some kind, then further wealth accumulation is a significant part of Marx's "crisis theory". And maybe that wouldn't be such a problem for the capitalist mode of production if that alone were true, that capitalism has boom and bust cycles every so often. But another important part of Marx's crisis theory, and something that is central to his entire economic philosophy, is that wealth accumulation accelerates as technology develops, since the value of labor (and, thus, the earning potential of the working class) goes down over time as human labor is replaced by machine labor. So, rather than having evenly-timed economic collapses in a capitalist economy, the frequency and intensity of collapses would increase over time.
This didn't exactly play out in the US, and there's a good reason why. After the Great Depression, where consumer demand fell, causing companies to stop investing, which in turn caused demand to plummet, Keynes decided that the best way to prevent another Great Depression would be to use monetary and fiscal policy to smooth boom and bust cycles. In other words, wealth redistribution through government spending.
The Pareto principle essentially states that in circumstances where former successes improve your odds of a future success, the distribution of "successes" among people becomes increasingly unequal over time. Peterson is right, this law applies to many things. But it isn't an inherent part of creativity or production, it's only an inherent part of capital, where having more accumulated material or money makes it easier to acquire even more.
Marx theorized for many reasons that money would inevitably cease to be a useful commodity of exchange if material production were ever fully automated. This is why people describe the communist mode of production as "moneyless, stateless, and classless". Money became useful when people began exchanging manufactured goods, as there is great utility in having a single unit of measure that can account for both human labor and raw resources. But if material production were fully automated, the cost of consumer products would be equal to the cost of the raw materials used.
And, in an economy where physical labor is fully automated, then the only valuable way for humans to contribute to the economy would be in the knowledge economy, where there is endless opportunity for the creation of new markets and ideas. Your first instinct might be to say, "Well, we already use money to purchase software and information now, so what would change?" But, using a capitalist market economy to trade ideas is actually highly inefficient. In order for the idea to have monetary value, you need to restrict that information only to those who pay for it. And if you restrict access to an idea, then it can never fulfill its maximum utility. Similar to how scientific journals restrict access to academic papers today and impede the development of scientific knowledge. Good innovations normally build off of the ideas of many other people, and restricting access to ideas would have the effect of slowing down the development of humanity. So, the most efficient way to compensate people for their ideas is not to charge a price for those ideas, but to give a reward for each hour worked, as time is the only scarce resource we all have. The popularity or usefulness of an idea should be its own reward, since people generally want to contribute instead of perform meaningless work.
People could contribute most effectively to a knowledge economy if they take jobs they are best at and enjoy the most. That is not possible if people are coerced into taking jobs by the threat of homelessness or hunger. So, work would ideally be optional. What would be the use in making it mandatory, if there's no work that necessarily needs to be done (since knowledge economy labor is driven by interest and not material needs), and food production is fully automated?
So, to answer your question, if the Pareto principle would apply to anything in a post-capitalist economy, then it would most likely apply to the usefulness or popularity of ideas. Since it's more efficient to reward workers per hour worked instead of per "copy" of that idea sold, the Pareto distribution would manifest itself in a way that doesn't affect the material conditions of people in society, making the communist mode of production naturally egalitarian.
@llriv Inequality isn't right or wrong. Morality is not a component in Marx's political and economic theories for good reason. Any philosophy that makes factual claims but is based in any part on subjective ethics is immediately made invalid by the is-ought problem. Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" is an example of this.
In Marxian economics (and mainstream economics as well), wealth inequality is inefficient. Not immoral. If business owners pay their workers less and less over time, eventually workers will no longer be able to afford the products they are making. Which causes demand to drop, which causes layoffs and a drop in investments, which causes demand to drop further. This is what caused the Great Depression. And ever since, the federal government has been redistributing wealth through Keynesian economic policy to prevent the Great Depression from repeating itself.
But Keynesianism was a band-aid. Wealth inequality grows faster as automation technology develops and working class labor becomes less valuable. Which has led to incredible increases in government spending since Keynesianism was introduced.
@llriv What's your reasoning for why Marx was wrong?
@llriv"Given what we know now his assumptions about pre-capitalist economic systems"
Such as?
Also what does evolution have to do with economics?
Capitalism is not a natural law it's a social formation and social formation cannot be explained by natural laws.
Actually it seems a critique from Fredrich Engels's (Social Darwinism) point of view of Marx.
A very small number of people have all the goods.
So in a way he was right?
Why is he enshrouded in darkness? It looks like he's a crazy person in a dark room just rambling on to himself.
He is
I think it's intentional so as to bring out the chiaoscuro lighting
EVERYTHING!!!
But when capital buys the government and skews the rules in its favor, that's not really creative production anymore I would say.
I agree on you on that.
If Communism is the "solution" to Capitalism, why has it never replaced a Capitalist society?
For the same reason all the really clever people work in banks, not in politics
Lol as if you're gonna read this but here goes:
Because capitalism is already established and has a vested interest in making communism not work because they can't make money off of it. Capitalism wants, as a conceptual force, to take things for their own gains.
Let's play devils advocate and suppose an abstract 'perfect communism', that being one that works as intended: If someone under communism already has their food, health and housing paid for offering them money doesn't get you anywhere because they don't need it. Equally if a capitalist wants to buy farm land off a communist no amount of money would be enough because, no matter how much money is offered, the money will be worth less than the land's capacity for 'free' food and shelter.
So what does the capitalist do? The capitalist it's being prevented from accruing more wealth (the 'aim' if you will) by the communists which is anti-capitalist. Thus the only thing to do, as a capitalist, is to go through the commies. Take their land and workers from them by force so they can continue to make profit.
Just my two cents.
@Jackson Mclean Hogwash. Communisim dosen't work for ONE reason. That reason is that human nature is incompatable with it. Most people don't work hard, most people are greedy, most people incorrectly put themselves on a pedestal and claim superiority.
A system of total equality will never work because people aren't totally selfless. They never will be.
@@jmclean6648 This isn't true. If a capitalist (this is a very abstract term, as anyone with any money or capital could be a 'capitalist', including, ironically, a communist,) wanted to buy farm land off a communist, there would be a point in which the money offered would certainly be worth it. The communist, living off that land, would have to ascertain how much value and wealth they could accrue from it. If the capitalist can offer more than this, the transaction is very likely to take place. For instance, the communist might have land too large for their own, individual needs. If they can sell the land and buy a smaller plot elsewhere, they are now free to spend the excess wealth as they please.
Because it's wrong on a fundamental, economic level. Demand determines value, not supply. If there is no demand the item is worthless no matter the supply. If there is demand then the item will have value depending on the available supply. Supply is only important in the value of an item when there is demand.
There are other reasons but if it's broke fundamentally then it will fail even if everything else was right.
yes but I don't like it when he puts in "as a natural law" and then gives the example of molecules in a vacuum. This does the exact opposite of what he is trying to illustrate - molecules in a vacuum rapidly disperse and become absolutely evenly distributed. I am not sure about this natural law business because of that - it doesn't seem to me that it is a natural law and he didnt explain this very well. it seems to me that the law of entropy means the exact opposite
True!!!!👏👏👏
What Peterson doesn’t mention is that capitalism today is no where near as exploitative as it was in its fledgling state. Our move towards Keynesian economics allowed the state to play a central role in minimizing the excessive exploitation that Marx was talking about. I’m not questioning his premise about the 1%. I’m just pointing out that true capitalism doesn’t exist anywhere and that Marx’s theory undoubtedly played a significant role in that.
@ 1:44, tend to agree, I suspect the concentration of Wealth as it were relates to the complexity of a given system rather than a feature of Capitalism specifically etc. But these things go in Cycles, they Centralise, over-Centralise, then De-Centralise, then over De-Centralise and an efficient Centralisation force begins to re-Centralise things in some way.
I don't think that petersen has read a word of Marx. This argument is hilarious, you guys need to read candide lol
What do you guys think about balancing Capitalism with Basic Income? Would be great for entrepreneurs, right?
This man conveys how wealth truly works by literally flushing the Thomas Crapper 🤔
He gets really triggered talking about communism and the Soviet union/china
I wouldn’t say triggered. I’d say he’s passionate about what he does. There’s anger inside him that comes out when he talks or thinks about the millions who died unnecessarily through Marxism and socialism. Sorry I’m replying to a 2yr old statement. But I think it needs addressing. 👍🏼
@@300leothelionyes but he seems to focus more on atrocities by the Soviet union/china, and obsesses with calling these"Marxist", more than atrocities by "right wing" or "non-communist" protagonists, like the Nazis, the United States by regime change and coups d'etats aimed at replacing "left-wing" leaders with right-wing ones, for example. He's more passionate about one kind of atrocity than another... this does not come across as rational or unbiased.
Hunty Baby I’ve watched a lot of Peterson’s videos on nazi atrocities and how hitler was a madman. But nazis don’t compare in comparison to mau or Stalin. We’re talking about almost a hundred million combined to just ten million or so (sorry I don’t have the exact figure close to hand) caused by nazi Germany during world war too. You’re right Peterson does concentrate more on communism simply because that’s still going on. Communism, like Marxism failed. China is the only country to have survived but that’s down to good trade with the rest of the world. Thanks for replying by the way. 👍🏻🇬🇧
Hunty Baby .....sorry I forgot you mentioned America doing their famous invade a country over some made up terrorism shit and replace the dictator with a chosen president for his western values and start draining the oil, but the first few million gallons is free due to the cost of the war that the Americans caused in the first place. 😂I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. I’d like to know the exact figure of Iraqis and Afghanistan people who have lost their lives, out of home, starving due to America. But, hey they apparently keep us safe 🤷🏼♂️
Jordan must be younger than he looks if he doesn't remember what it was like to live in a social democracy. There was inequality, but it was at a level we'd have accepted under a Rawlsian veil and that level was stable for decades. The transition from that to the distribution we have now was not the result of progression of an existing process, but of a successful revolution of the rich. As for Marx. He got one thing spectacularly wrong. He published. He failed to account for the effects of Marxism on his historical determinism. He failed to imagine that Russia would prematurely and disastrously attempt to skip capitalism.
So what period of time in this fucking fairy tale world are referring to? The 80's, 90's?
That varies from country to country. The country I'm in was effectively ended by a parliamentary coup in 1984. Since then it has been an investment portfolio rather than a country. For other countries the transition may have been earlier or spread over a longer period.
Theosphilus Thistler Can you be more specific? I'd like to know which country, how it was a socialist democracy and specifically how life was better during those times.
I'd prefer not to say which country. That's why I use a made-up name. I'll start by telling you how it was worse: their were some clunky and silly little rules. The shopping wasn't as good. Shopping was definitely part of the travel experience in those days. In every other way it was better. We all had jobs and those jobs paid enough to live on. We could afford to buy the houses we built. We could afford to eat the food we grew. We educated those suited to higher education at no cost to them and with mutual benefit. We had a full range of skills and produced a wide range of goods. We had the second highest standard of living in the world. We were an "industrialised country" (whereas a few years ago we had the second lowest rate of industrial growth behind North Korea). We had freedom of speech. Universities pursued knowledge rather than intellectual property. We could hike in our own wilderness without booking. We didn't need to desperately depend on tourism. We didn't have French tourists shitting in every bush beside the road but if we wanted to we could break a roadtrip by sleeping where we parked. We had no homelessness. I don't think I touched a house key till I'd left home. We had no youth suicide problem. Armed robberies were something we knew of only from American movies. We all enjoyed a lifestyle that only a 7 figure income could procure today. We were a fucking goofy little paradise. Shall I go on....?
- Yep. This guy is obviously full of shit.
In short: Every piece of bullshit he ever peddled.
interesting analogy with the water going down the drain spiral, it's the same spiral you're observing but not the same water molecules in other words you're watching the same phenomenon occurring but with different actors. Those who possess the wealth have indeed been different groups overtime if you look at history, the most resounding example of that being the creation and expansion of a well off middle class in the field of business particularly, they're not the kings or clergy, times change and Marx failed to predict that.
Marx failed to see length Capitalism would go to for it's own survival
Stop putting words in Mr. Marx’ mouth and disparaging a man who meant very well. Not interested in this Peterson who is an anti-trans bigot. UA-cam please stop suggesting this guy.
If you think Marx meant well you’re delusional. He created the most evil, viscous, resentful and genocidal ideology in history.
@@archiewall124 so did capitalism
It's not a matter of looking at the assumed ends of those effects that were assumed to happen because of the necessity of an economic water molecules moving thru a system before it becomes to large and suffers a collapse.
But even Adam Smith wrote about the curse of the unequal distribution of goods and wealth....and how it was terribly destabilizing.....a society cannot remain healthy with a few uber wealthy and a vast majority struggling to simply exist...that is the definition of a Banana Republic........also it tends to make for a governmental oligharchy that manages to write all the rules to benefit itself...usually at the expense of the common man.....
What part of neoliberalism does this man not yet see? I like the passion but I think the spirit has corrupted the logos. His discourse has morphed into propaganda and it does not take a master degree to notice the reactionary character of such a fainting voice.
Did Karl even take into consideration technological advances? Did he even know that even if we ran out of resources here on earth we can get all the resources we need from automated mining operations into the kyber belt?
The advance of technology is a massive theme in his work, so yes, he did think about it. Capitalism's tendency to create more and more labour-saving machines, thus undermining purchasing power in the majority of the population, is one of the many contradictions of capitalism that he identified.
There is some truth in the statement that ''the same proportion of people but not the same people'', BUT, if your dad is rich, your chances of being and staying in this 1-5% are bigger. They DO stay the same people. Monsanto gets bigger and bigger and now it merges with Bayer. They just get bigger and they don't collapse. There trully is movement in the tale of the Pareto distribution but less than is healthy for the society.
The more you produce the more you earn, rightfully so. But many others are better off from this production eg. Smart phones. The people who envy are the true evil.
"Komunist is someone who read Karl Marx's works. Kapitalist is someone who read them and understood."
This is a funny video title. What Marx got wrong: everything.
Scott Humphreys Have u actually read Marx
;-)
I also have to wonder if the "Revolution of the Proletariat" or ultimately the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" didn't just find it's trigger with Brexit & Trump. The Proles were NEVER the proponent of Socialism/Capitalism. That was always advanced by the Welfare class and Rich peoples kids. If there is hope it lay with the Proles.
I can answer you this: EVERYTHING
*never read marx* (he read the communist manifesto for the zizek debate)
Jordan is a little wrong about "it's not the same people". There is a work made by two italian economist on rich people in italy and it turns out the top 1 % in italy today is basically descendant of the top 1 % in italy during Machiavel's time.
Yeah, have to agree that that sounded a little off.
SamSam G Italian government is corrupt as hell. That’s the cause of the problem, not Capitalism. Wealth mobility is greater in capitalist nations. But Italy has the most corrupt government of all southern european nations.
Go look at the latest Forbe's 500 list. Find what percentage at the absolute top, the wealthiest of them all, are first generation. You'll be very surprised.
The Pareto Distribution is a very weak framework of theoretical explanation. It involves a deterministic worldview. One that is falsifiable in terms of any system before capitalism. The Pareto Distribution implies a transhistorical 'law' that is independent from historical events and social conflict. It explains inequality in any given society as something that is dissasiciated from actual historical development. How, then, did the french revolution come about? Did it not establish a kind of equality that was unknown before it? Was inequality in ancient rome driven by this made-up 'law' of nature or was it driven by the actual conflicts between Patricians, Plebeians + the landed/economic interests of the ruling groups? Did Dictators, emperors and consuls not rise and fall depending upon these very conflicts of interest? Or were they simply attempting to unwittingly conform to this 'law' of nature that Peterson proposes?
Applying this "theory" as something that explains History is naive at best. Peterson should leave that sort of theoretical speculation to competent historians.
So, how do we encourage the bifurcation and not the concentration of capital and power? I don't yet know how to do it but it would increase GDP growth and benefit everybody. The dissolution of the greatest concentrations seems an obvious answer but that is fraught with danger and there needs to be some mechanism to recirculate those concentrations up through the bottom (that's what s/he said). How then?
While ma x was wrong. Peterson is also. The drain analogy is flawed to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Over time capitalist systems do result in stagnant upper classes, uppwatds mobility is decreasing every day. The only reason for any statistical indication of liquid wealth distribution is due to wars, crashes and revolutions.
When JBP says "the distribution of wealth can be modeled by physical models using the same equations that govern the distribution of gas molecules in a vacuum", can someone point me to which equations he is referencing here?
I do not doubt that he is correct, but I simply do not know which equations in particular. I'm very curious, for reasons that are probably boring for most people.
Thank you.
Lol "reasons that are boring for most people" ya im sure ;)
Actually, I think I just found it. It must be the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution equations. Here's a short article on how they appear to similarly model other pareto-type distributions, specifically in finances: www.newscientist.com/article/dn22105-inequality-the-physics-of-our-finances/
I would bet that Nicolas Nassim Taleb has elaborated extensively on this long-tail phenomenon
Nature MIx MV do you think that 'save' in that article equates to 'invest' in the real world - otherwise the!10%'s savings would be lost to inflation?
He literally told you what it's called. You couldn't Google it or look it up on Wikipedia?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
Peterson is trying to refer to Maxwell's Demon, a thought experiment conducted by physicist James Maxwell in the 1870s. Peterson's application is very much incoherent though. He's trying to refer to the randomness of the distribution and you clearly can and should doubt that Peterson is correct.
Take a look at the Wikipedia entry on Maxwell's Demon. It's an extremely important concept that has led to vital appllications in physics, economics and poststructuralist philosophy. For instance, derivatives pricing (options, futures, etc.) rely on stochastic calculus which owes its inspirational heritage to the path that Maxwell and others helped forge. Systems theory and mid-20th century cybernetics is critically influenced by the concept; take a look at Norton Weiner's cybernetics publications (with no shortage of mathematics for you). Weiner's work was very experimental, had some controversy, but unquestionably was one of the most important contributions that accelerated numerous disciplines including computer science, psychology, economics, etc.
I don't know why Peterson gets it nearly right with Marxism, but he always blows it completely. I wish he would stick to things he understands.
Mind blown multiple times !
Again, Marx never claimed the same people own the majority of wealth across time!
how are you gonna say he was wrong if you don’t make things up.
These shorts are great. I've been seeing your videos all over UA-cam by other channels. It's nice to be able to credit the up votes and comments to the originator. Keep it up. You are the proverbial "prophet" so to speak of our almost lost generation.
I would not grant Marx's proposition. he didn't think the reduction in capital accumulation would ever stabilize. or that the reduction in proletariat living standards would stop until they were at subsistence levels. He thought the stable number of capitalist was one, and if there were more they would battle each other. In that and all his other predictions he was totally wrong. For the theoretical reasons see von mises.
Actually the failure of Marx's prediction about wealth distribution is far worse than Peterson says here: One of the most significant results of "Capitalism" (to use that pejorative Marxist term for what should be called market economy) was the growth of a Middle Class, the one thing that the Marxian notion of progressive immiseration of the working class and increasing concentration of all wealth in the richest hands precludes. Marx failed to notice and to force the most spectacular socioeconomic result of what he called Capitalism: The creation and growth of the Middle Class.
that should be "foresee", and not "force", of course
in germany socialist ideas worked hand in hand with capitalistic ideas...result:strong middle class..
since our politics gave more and more power to straight capitalism: middle class shrinks.
The Pareto distribution - Power Law distribution - applies to forest fires too. This is a feedback loop process. What happens when you eliminate the negative feedback? The system blows up.
Communism and socialism are putting out all the fires in the forest - eliminating the negative feedback. Then the conditions are set for a fire so big that everything is wiped out.
Crash = Time + Stability
Stability means putting out all the fires. Time means giving the system enough time until it is ready to collapse or crash.
Stability is the enemy.
When a stable system (the US), after a long period of time, has reached a point where it is ready to crash, then you will see unrelated large crashes or unusual activity in different areas: 9/11, 2008 financial crash, talk of great-power war, talk of civil war in the US, ... . These all appear to be unrelated but in reality they are related by time. This is just like a forest which is ready to get wiped out in a fire. Unrelated problems throughout the forest but actually related by time.
Time is just about up for the US. After the crash comes and the dust settles, then we will be looking at a completely different country.
Most of the times I agree with Peterson, not in this case. The big inequality nowadays is not mainly due to this Effect he is talking about, its also because wealth is passed on through generations. Most of the big accumulations of wealth can be traced back to 16th/17th century, and have nothing to do with creativity, an ability to innovate or any other form of success giving factors. Also the movement of wealth of the upper 1% is not as big as he suggests, who is born wealthy, usually stays wealthy, if successful or not.
I agree that wealth and goods will probably always be distributed unequally due to the different distribution of, call it talent. But nowadays we have a HUGE amount of wealth being extracted from the masses alone because of the financial system of interest and the passing on of wealth through generations.
So yes, I agree that this feature is shared by most systems of creative production, but has become the blind spot of Capitalism. And yes, I believe we need political measure to counter these tendencies, otherwise they will be handled by revolutions, wars or another crisis.
agree that's the mechanism at play. but actually piketty did a good job exposing that the great depression, the two WW and the hyper inflations of the XX century destroyed a huge chunk of the world's wealth that was accumulated during the period you mentioned. the western world we're living in now is increasingly unequal (within countries) but the biggest chunk of the capital now in circulation started to get accumulated by the great generation and the baby boomers.
Isn't inherited wealth usually wasted in two generations or so?
if you swquander it, even faster :) but recent studies have shown that you can track most of the big fortunes back a couple of hundret years. People like Steve Jobs are the Reason for capitalism, but they are rare.
You can look up most of the founders of the major companies today yourself. Nearly all production or service companies founders were poor or middle class to start with. If you are talking about banks that's another matter, and a good case for NOT having central banks.
"Nearly all production or service companies founders were poor or middle class to start with."
Probably, though that doesnt say anything about the actual distribution of wealth, which is heading towards a 10/90 society. Look at poltitics for instance. Its rich family dynasties in many democracies. The American dream is a fairy tale, more true in Europe than in the US, and even there its increasingly hard to escape poverty, if you’re born into it. Wealth, education and the possibility to rise are inherited in a strong degree. Of course you can still do it. But we are far away from any equality in opportunity, which is, imho, a real enemy of innovation.
What is the piano music at the end? Elsewhere someone said it was Bach BMV Goldberg variations #25 but it's not. Anyone? Prof. Peterson uses it in older videos and it is wonderful.
One should focus on Marx his problem analysis not on his solution. Marx analysis are right and propose in fact a path to creative individualism. His solution however is through state power, which in his mind was a temporary bridge reaching his proposed goals. That of course went horribly wrong as centers of power always corrupt as they become bigger. Furthermore the Soviet Union never had anything even close to socialism or communism. Lenin made sure he killed the Soviets, communes and anarchists when he came to power. Lenin was lifting on those movements to get power as any central American politician would do lifting on polls and sentiments. One they’re in office, well, it’s only their agenda and their donors that determine policies.
5 people need to sort themselves out.
Vashte Johnson 😀Nice one mate.
You need to stop worshipping people and repeating their cult phrases, and start thinking for yourself.
Joe Smith What are you saying that in reference to? It's absurd and distasteful for you to say that without reference.
132 people have a brain while 3487 morons praise an idiot.
So much for the sorting.
miles H. "Sorting yourself out" is a Peterson-ism. His followers repeat phrases like this ad nauseam in the comments of almost every Peterson video.
The complete list of things Karl Marx got wrong:
1. Everything.
No one speaks about the distribution of healty thinking, the simplistic way of seeing life es the worst poison to any society. I even think that that distribution follows a Pareto structure.
I wonder if one of the issues with capitalism is that the very wealthy often do not pursue the hero myth to it's completion. For those who take risks and work hard and bring something useful to their community or the world and become wealthy in the process, these people are certainly deserving of their rewards and the people's admiration and have justified their worth and in a sense completed their own hero's journey. It is their decision whether or not they would like to complete another journey. For those who achieve a degree of wealth beyond what is beneficial to a single person by means that does not benefit their community and who horde it like the mythical dragon, not only is such caution a denial of life's potential but they may make the mistake of relying on their 'status' as a person of wealth as a means of earning the admiration of others. This 'ego' related source of admiration is perhaps more tied up with a Cain like jealousy on the part of others, than a healthy love and respect for the hero the likes of what was shown towards Abel for his not only couragous but beneficial actions. This posessive type of wealth accumulation is unlikely to make the wealthy person or those that envy him happy as we can tell from the literature, so this is perhaps not an ideal social relationship. So maybe the solution is for those with wealth to see what good their wealth can do in their communities, to freely choose to put their wealth to use in a way of their choosing that is close to their heart and feel the satisfaction, the love, and respect they are sure to earn in return, fulfilling their own heros journey. I admire Dr. Peterson for using his Patreon earnings to fund further free education for his community. I feel that he is a hero setting out on yet another hero's journey because a true hero know's that the greatest reward lies within the journey itself.
Jordan B Peterson, you've mentioned on many occasions the idea that the one percent shifts across time. Please could share your sources for this. As I'm curious. Thanks
Xn0VV7hj31ph just look it up. I don't have the source on hand rn either but search up millionares and how many of them were born into rich life. Only a third or millionares or higher were born into it. And that's been consistent (adjusting for inflation) for centuries as far as I can tell. But like I said you should be able to find the info yourself with a few Google searches
When Peterson gets out of his element (economics.)
Marx was out of his element, too (economics).
It's almost like Jordan Peterson hasn't heard of billionaires and how they exploit the lower classes.
@Fed Rai Thanks for proving my point.
Too big to fail my be one of the sole reasons capitalism got corrupted by centralized banking and government
"transfer of creative production" . Thats nothing but his personal doublespeak for capital accumulation.
One would hope that at least he bothered to learn some nomenclature.
Watch Steve Keen's recent lectures. There one can learn something for a change.
I love how both Marxists and critics of Marx treat him as a God. Marx was not pretending to hold absolute truth. A modern reevaluation of old economists generally shows how wrong all of them were in fact. Like any theorist he set up a collection of abstract models for understanding a complex system. He's much more comparable to a David Ricardo or an Adam Smith, both economists that 'got it wrong' equally often. Very often, even, Marx's errors lie in the works of those that influenced him. For his time though Marx was brilliant. He doesn't hold a candle to modern economists though.
This talks like he is an expert on Marxism, but yet he's clearly has no clue what Marxists believe. Its like he has never even heard the phrase "means of production." Marx was not calling for the redistribution of incomes.
Caleb Maupin Agreed Caleb. BTW I love the non-biased reporting you do.
Everything in the universe follows a pareto pattern... planets are congregations of extreme mass in a universe of near zero matter... cities are congregations of costly housing whereas antarctica is rent free.. the surface of the globe is not valued uniformly.. but upon arbitrary lines of scarcity and abundance.. there is only 1 main motorway but lots of smaller roads... there is only one trunk but lots of tiny roots.. there is only one heart but lots of blood vessels... there is ONE BIG city.. there has to be many small towns cast far out.. vast areas of the Pacific are virtually lifeless yet the coasts are crammed with marine life
To create you must invest the system must be creative. This can't happen under markism
They produce they don't create! Creating is something else!
What not reading Marx does to a mf
They did not reverse anything in 2008, game was set and played out. They knew they would get a bailout.
Had the policy of,, never too big to fail" been put to everyone few years prior to crash it would not happpen.
In the end most of those who crashed the system were baiked out and rest transferred money by buying extremely low as they knew market will be on the rise for almost a decade.
The video should have just been JP saying "everything."
@М how about a sense of humor?
He's trying awful hard to find things to talk about. For the most part, Marx nailed it in the head.
Surplus value is accumulated, if there is no surplus value, there is nothing to accumulate.
Jordan says this a lot, but almost all of his descriptions of marx are suspisciously wrong. Marx at no point claimed that capital accumulation was distinct to capitalism.
I don't think anyone has ever said that the same people accross time end up with the ability to accumulate capital. What would that even mean? I love his little analogies, because they reveal how silly he thinks marx was, and by extension, how silly he is.
I feel like peterson is refering to the idea of "the bourgeoise", but thats reading things backwards. It is the case that the people who accrue the most resources in the capitalist system are those who own the means of production, and by extension, the labor of others. And marx was concerned with this emergent class system. None of this implies the obviously stupid idea that the makeup of the owning class has literally stayed the same, composed of literally the same people, since the dawn of capitalism.
Also, why in the world would you mention "the one percent" in a video supposedly honestly explaining what marx got wrong? Marx was, again, primarily concerned with the emergence of the particular class system present in the capitaist mode of production and by what mechanisms it operated. Not the brute fact that sucess begets sucess.
Adressing the underlying class system, by the way, is a way of "mitigating the effects of the transfer of [the products of] creative production into the hands of a small number of people." Marx never wanted to abolish perato distrubutions, so why act like he did?
I might be wrong of course, and I'd love for someone to back up peterson's assertions here.
The Videos name should be "What Peterson Got Wrong About Marx".
Marx was a sad man and a liar
Less than a minute in to the video and it's bullshit.
*Using the Pareto principle as an argument:*
- Pareto principle came about in the late 19th century, asserting that it is "natural" that 20% cause 80% of the effects, and on a sociological scale this would be applied as "20% of the people create 80% of the stuff". The justification for the Pareto principle was that, in the late 19th century, 80% of Italy's lands were owned by 20% of the people, hence such is nature and such should be.
- Karl Marx offered actual analyses throughout human history and most importantly on capitalism. Simply put, capitalism operates for profit, wherein the means of production/distribution (capital) are privately owned and controlled, and there is competition within the capital markets. It is asserted that capitalists generally have an incentive to take a bigger market share and expand their business, when able i.e. when competitive. A number of predictions arises from this, such as centralization of capital.
What do we see today?
- Less than a hundred people own more than 50% of the population in the entire planet. The rate of profit has a clear falling trend since the 19th century. The competitive capitalists have indeed generally had an incentive to expand their capital, and 80% of Italy's land is not owned by 20% of the people, because the capital has centralized.
In conclusion: If anyone's buying the whole Pareto principle bs, at least admit that on this case it needs a serious update at least. Marxism, however, stands as predicted. No wonder, it's just a logical prediction. Like putting people in a running competition, and expecting there to be a winner at the end, instead of treating the competition as some kind of an almighty eternal immortal competition.
Simply put- Mr Peterson is one of the most intelligent, measured ,aware people in the world.We need more like him to combat the lunacy that exists in this world.And the lunatics breed like bacteria.Hail Jordan.
Correct use of "problematic", thank you professor