He is not dead, although he is not with us but he is all around us, if you pay attention, and as Richard Fayman said " knowledge is very costly you need to pay attention ".
Economics is generally regarded as a social science, although some critics of the field argue that economics falls short of the definition of a science for a number of reasons, including a lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones.
science is not about consensus. Testing Hypothesis in social sciences(everything beyond hardware psychology) is done through watching history developing. You cant predict humans with a 100% certainty, its probabilistic. search this term "Methodological Dualism", theres an interesting rabbit hole for you, bro. Best wishes.
@@jonnybyrne989 every major thinker in history is responsible for starving a few kids by that rationale. Same is true of Nietzsche, Plato and so many other who were interpreted and then resulted in deaths. Communism can be blamed on Marx more than Nazism on Nietzsche or the Crusades on Christ, but let’s not go pinning all ideological deaths on the originator of the idea. Dangerous grounds.
@@jonnybyrne989 Categorically false. Look up the infant mortality rates in mid 19th century London and the diseases that befell him and his family. If you have an issue with his ideas then take the time to engage them, but this ad hominem doesn't lend any credence to your position.
@@sandollor he cheated on his wife an had a bunch of s.t.d's he came from a rich family an felt patronizingly guilty for it... I find it hilarious all socialist an communist thinkers are people who come from wealth telling poor people how to live.... His ideas were tryed over an over again in the 20 century which resulted in mass genocide... But I'm sure there are people still out there believing that communism hasn't been tryed the way they see it.... Also why wasn't there more people trying to escape to east Germany back in the day, as opposed to the other way around.... 🤔
I wish people they were interested in economics which we all should be would look more into general economic theory and listen to people from all different sides. Lex is the man.
Das Kapital has a subtitle: "critique of the political economy". It's a critique of the field of economics as it was established and practiced during Marx time. Marx DOES NOT subscribe to the 'labor theory of value', it's Smith and Ricardo, whom Marx cites, who are proponents of that theory. Anyone saying Marx wants you to believe in labor theory of value has never studied Marx and can be dismissed on the topic of Marx immediately.
I do not claim in any way to be as smart as Steve Keen… but I was lucky enough to have 1/2 lecturers who told me “question everything” - and 1 in particular who said “question everything, especially what the university and the textbooks tell you. If you can test it or find e evidence for it, fine. But if not look for the truth on your own”.
Yes it applies to machines but machines doesn't creat the value and if what you said is true American corporate didn't move the production to China and also if you have machines all over the place and replace the labor of human they will not sale anything because the purchasing power would be impacted or it would cease to be. Marx was fully aware of the role of machines in capital processes and as far as I know he didn't make a mistake.
Machines might have a bigger impact then before but there is still plenty of people needed in manifacture. Besides there is a huge % of population in service jobs: Cleaning, entertainment, banks, analytics, waiters... That have wages and still need to buy what factories produce
I was an economics major and I know for a fact that most students that want to study more marxism after graduation do so just because you dont need to use math and statistics..
if that were true, an equal amount of students would study Austrian economics. since that's not true, i sense that there's an idealogically component to their choice.
Your telling me people take on extracurricular studying and pick to study something they don’t care about so it’s easier? Yeah I started a diet so I could eat burgers everyday, started working out just because I wanted to cheat reps too. I also bred my dog so I could give the puppies to the pound
i find it hard to believe this guy actually studied marx, the amount of basic errors any junior scholar of marx would never make is astounding. for example marx never said machinery didn't add value to a production process, that's complete nonsense
Hes obviously enthusiastic and has read a lot but he also seems scatter brained. He goes all over the place and cant really explain one thing simply and clearly Id guess hes like a popular writer on economics or something?
lol "scholar of marx" tell me you've never really worked or produced anything of value without telling me you've worked. Just like Marx's mother said about him "if only Karl had made capital, instead of writing about it."
His family life was chaotic disaster. He couldn't afford to support them. He was a brothel creeper. Two of his daughters committed suicide. He had a illegitimate child with his unpaid housekeeper who he blamed Engels for fathering
@@carloandreaguilar5916 As a adult he ponced off his family, then her family, then Engels. Despite the money his daughter received, two of his daughters committed suicide. His illegitimate son was shunned and ignored. He was a frequent brothel customer in the times when 13 and 14 year old girls were bought to service patrons Engels had 2 factories, did he do any thing to improve the life of the workforce ? The pair of them were frauds and a curse to their families And virulent racists, forget to mention that
@@carloandreaguilar5916 He got his start in 1843. He treated the people closest to him appallingly. He was a pseudo intellectual, narcissistic fraud . His best mate, and co conspirator Engels did nothing to improve the lives of his workforce, some of whom were children working in his factories. He revered by the far left as a prophet and a patriarch. His ideology killed 100,000,000 people in a century. Enslaved, tortured and starved another half billion. Every country, in every society it's failed with catastrophic results His ideas are for fools, frauds, and failures
@@jazztheglass6139 I'm probably the last person anyone would consider a defender of Karl Marx, but, He loved his children and Jenny Marx, his wife. He was emotionally shattered by the deaths of the four Marx children who didn't survive to adulthood. It's important to remember the humanity of these persons regardless of the harm their ideas have done.
@Roberto Vidal Garcia People have been studying that dude for many decades, Marxism doesn't lead to liberation, it leads to economic collapse...which is why it's being pushed. The wealthy want to destroy everything so they can buy it up.
but studying Platoo, Aristotle, Séneca, Plotinus, Philo of Alexandria, pseudo Dionisio of Areopagita, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas, Descartes, Hume, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Berkeley, Leibniz, Wolf, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Russel, Whitehead, Frégé, Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Quine, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Lévinas, Marcuse, Adorno, etc etc etc isn't useful? even to understand the history of thought that are part of the actual common sense and we usually don't examine? knowing more o developing a good understanding of logic, politics, metaphysics, ontology, theology, ethics, history? Perhaps the mentioned could contradict your understanding of the world, but isn't a reason to cry or feeling that you're wasting your time because a couple of dead dude hurt your feelings.
Maybe he just didn't explain it correctly, but it seems like Keen has no understanding of Marginal Utility. He has mentioned nothing about ordinal preference but has talked about magnitudes of "utility". There is no cardinal magnitude of utility. Man can only choose one use over another. Value on the margins means when a unit of a good is lost, it's value becomes the next subjective use value of the good. Meaning a good's value is only the utility of the good at it's next lowest subjective value. Marx made this mistake in the 1st page of Das Kapital.
Diminishing marginal utility just means you would be willing to pay less for the the next unit of the same good, regardless of what they are charging for it. This is because you get your fill of it and you are less interested in the next unit of it than the last.
He didn't actually do those things. He's no more responsible for that than Nietzsche is for Nazism. He was a sociologist, economist, and philosopher more than a political leader.
@@JeffCaplan313 Judge the person and literature also. Wasn’t Jesus depicted as selfless and an outspoken practitioner of non-violence? Marx never condemned the use of violence, if anything he supported it in nearly everything he’s ever said. He also was a rabid anti semite - not a good human being in any sense.
@@Xpistos510 except for when he said seize the means of production. If that's not an incitement of violence than you must think the George floyd riots were peaceful protests
The social hierarchy was different, it didn't depend on what you possess but on your ability to adapt and thrive inside the culture and human relationship of your tribe (a bit like high school, there was the cool kids and the weirdos). It's so different that saying that social hierarchy didn't exist is actually accurate.
@@ledernierutopiste what? It was very much dependant on your class and specialisation. Hunter/gatherer/healer/shaman. Inherited position of chief. In most cases hunters were above in the class hierarchy. The son of the chieftain still had access to best food. It's just that number classes were less, so it appeared to have less inequality.
That would actually be 2 bombs dropped on Japan, Agent Orange deployed in Vietnam, the drone strikes in the middle east, and many other acts of horror the west has inflicted on black and brown countries over the past 150 years. Capitalism is responsible for millions of deaths in the middle east alone in just the past 2 decades.
i think the point being made, was that Marx wasn't even capable of making money to feed his family, when the average man could. And he was the one to whine the most about it.@@nietzschefriend
@@drrydog Marx was disabled with chronic health issues and busy with political organization. Stay mad that communists like Engels actually have empathy for their friends
14:30 What mistake? It can't apply equally to machinery. Who produces, operates and maintains the machinery? Labour. Marx is saying, in exchange the natural properties and qualities and the humanity of labour is extinguished in exchange. It has to do with their different conceptions of property. Marx sees specifically human properties....the booj sees exclusive private property rights in terms of their possession, ownership and control of the means of production. These relations are not "subjective." They're based on the power and control of the ruling class. That's a objective material fact. It's got nothing to do with individual ideas about price and value. That is powerless. The power of the ruling class is collective. They have the law and the armed forces to back them up.
@@kronus4915The "means of production" include land, labour and capital. In the development of industrial factory production for the mass market ALL of the factors of production have to be coordinated. The subsistence needs of labour have to be met or there's no workforce to employ. Land is everything that's on, under and over the land. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries were all industrialised into the bargain.
In Chinese history, it was very well known Marxism/Communism does not work for many certain industries, leading to starvation and lack of resources everywhere. It just didn't make sense to have a factory working 2 to 3 days of the week, producing just enough for consumption, in a fair distributed way, where people are paid nearly the same, so people abused powers and costs, ... many millions died, so in actuality, a lot of Chinese people in China dislike Communism. Today, administratively, China is like regional totalitarian, while their economy is pure capitalism mixed with socialism and "Chinese characteristics". "Chinese characteristics" simply means where state sponsored markets according to president XI's 5 year plans outlined. Any deeper subjects, is limited to my own personal lack of knowledge. For more, can try reading "China and the West" (2019) by H. R. McMaster, Michael Pillsbury, Kishore Mahbubani, Huiyao Wang. In my opinion, the biggest catalyst I believe the difference in western countries, is a 5 year plan or a 10 year plan, where all political parties can agree to uphold, instead of trashing the previous administration's plans when a new government gets elected. I also don't think it requires 5 years or 2 years for transgender pronouns. There are many other problems need to be fixed, such as more efficient logistics, faster transport high speed cargo trains, state to state energy utility transfer through batteries on edges of states interconnection, faster government services for people, distributed kiosks around cities where you can get birth certificates lost in one day, or tax papers in one day rather than 2 weeks, MRI machine is used a few times a week, while patients are waiting months for a scan, missing the golden window opportunity of diagnosis for screening, (similar to a factory only operating 2 days of the week versus busy all the weeks, then a maintenance period), better handling and severe punishments for corruptions (for example; offshore laundering, wall street stock manipulations, government spending reviews with transparency), sponsor and give full support to olympic athletes that are spending their everyday life to put their country's name on the board, etc.
China is definetly more socialist than the US is capitalist, most of the founding for research is made by the government, you have an enourmous military and constant interference in the economy. You are wrong in your definitions but I appreaciate that you took the time to discuss this in a serious optic.
@@cfnaround1585 he'd make a great capitalist then 😛 In all seriousness, Marx was a vicious polemicist and never made "use" of his friends He had a skin condition that couldn't allow him to do real manual labor, and his handwriting sucked so much he couldn't be a secretary The only reason Engels supported him is because he truly believed he was a genius (which I agree with)
@ so basically he was useless and offered no value but still thought he deserved what other people worked hard for. At least in capitalism, you get value for your money
6:59 To even establish a context in which to lay out Marx's ideas, he has to make wildly inept and subjective statements about "tribal culture". Marxism and related modern-day "critical" theories rely on complete fantasy to explain human history and behavior. Perhaps Marx had some interesting ideas. But I've never heard anyone, not even his most ardent followers, claim his ideas have predictive or explanatory power in real-world economies or relationships.
@Down with Corporate Amerika Your claims are all based on selfishness, and none of these are caused by capitalism. The reason most Americans can't take a month long vacation is because they are fiscally irresponsible, and I don't think it should be obligatory to pay for someone else's vacation when they aren't producing value during that time. Healthcare and education have been decimated by government meddling. Administrative staff have increased exponentially alongside increased public spending in both of these fields. In order to end capitalism then you would have to use government coercion and force to restrict private employment. This would result in mass incarceration, and lower quality of life for everyone but those with legislative power.
Check out the economic theories of Anwar Shaikh. He took an engineering approach to economics, starting from the observed data and working back to see which economic models best predicted the real world data. He ended up at a foundation of Marx, Smith and Ricardo. Many of their original insights still predict our economy better than any modern economic theories.
On the first page of the chapter on Machinery in Capital, Marx says "the machine" is "a means for producing surplus-value". Marx's argument about value has to be understood in relation to the concepts of "abstract labour" and "socially necessary labour-time", but he is definitely not saying that machines like cranes "don't add value" in the sense Keen is implying. Quite the opposite.
And keep the undesirables purged evermore. Need a good eugenetics program too. Lots of elimination of those in power too, to keep corruption down. Not to mention no room for competing ideas. It could work. Don't think I would make it through the selection process and not sure I would want to live with those who did,,, but it could work. I wanted to add that every functional social group; from family to country scale has a mechanism to correct/ modify and remove those who do not fit expectations (punished/ kicked out of the house/ banished from tribe/ imprisoned/ executed).
Well, he started at home by eliminating 4 of his 7 children by starvation and neglect. Interestingly, that's how the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union eliminated so many, by starvation. Same in China. Starvation seems to be a theme with Marx's ideas.
Whereas Hobbesian neo-liberalism (the current paradigm across much of the US-centric West) relies on keeping more than half the population in subsistence-level poverty in order to drive the price of labour down for the tiny fraction at the top. Marx wasn't about "eliminating" people, his focus was on removing the exploitative class as a force in society. Self-interest is a good thing, however self-interest that becomes anti-social, such as oligarchic capitalist or hegemonic "communist" models, is dangerous and destructive. The problem was/is, that there is a small proportion of the population that is innately driven to be exploitative and anti-social. The success of oligarchs and hegemons relies on convincing those people who are not innately built that way that they have to act as though they are, or be exploited/eliminated. Hence good people do bad things in the name of self-interest, while bad people eat from gold plates and laugh at how easy they are to manipulate.
In India lots of people died of bad nicotine but our India government is highest share holders of India biggest tabacco company ITC. so they ban vaping not even other political group don't talk about it. Imagine how many individuals will save money
To a certain extent, Steve thinks for himself. He is able to criticize abstract contradictions in what Marx believed. Yet he (and others) fail to challenge the major premises upon which communism is built.
Because communism, with human solidarity and dignity as its base principle, is surely worse than capitalism, with selfishness, exploitation, and no regard of negative externalities as its core, must be opposed at all costs, lest we create a world that's good for everyone.
One aspect that didn't seem to get traction is *why* people trade their productivity. What is the cost base of an hour of labor? Why does the taxation authorities think it is zero? If it is truly zero, what is the basis for overtime loadings after a certain time worked in a day? At some point, a worker no longer wants to exchange his time for wages, at any price, implying that the cost base exceeds the wage offered. In my commentary, cost base is somewhat analogous to Steve's background.
Steve Keen, just like many post-Keynesians, use roundabout speech and flowery language to make it seem like they're smart. When you parse through what they're saying, you realize it's mostly nonsense.
Nope. Because this guest is incapable of advancing our understanding of how the economic society works. Check out Milton Friedman and see the real world unfold with crystal clear explanations.
From my understanding, Marxism applies to the workplace. So labor unions and cooperatives are what he was talking about. The problem I see is that there is less and less work to be done so it's not going to be applicable in the future.
I'm a union tradesman. There’s tons of work in the trades, everyone is short handed. Very lucrative and honest work. I've been trying to get young people on board with labor unions in the trades for 10 years. All of that work is never going away, and if it does we have much bigger problems... Workplace transformation (in certain applicable sectors, robotics for example) will only create more room for technicians.
The preferred outcome of productivity improvements is an increase of leisure time. What it has become is more profit for the company, executive pay increases and, shareholder return. The other side of the coin being stagnate wages, reduction of the middle class, reduced higher wage jobs in manufacturing, transition to a service based labor market resulting in less leisure(personal) time due to the necessity to work multiple jobs to survive.
The first book of the capital is about production (including workplace), second book is about the circulation process of money. And the third book is on macro economy.
Just a random observation: I wonder if most of YT commenters are so anti-socialism/Marx/capitalism that I can barely find a comment saying "Great discussion" "had some good points from the other side, even if i don't agree". The same comments that are super common in other Lex's videos. I hope that is not the case and YT comments are just mostly by people with certain views and like to hear only what they like
Prodigy of mobb deep had an album entitled the Hegelian Dialectic...the cover was full of cool and somewhat ominous imagery and symbolism and he was very lyrical about the illuminati.
Streamer Destiny actually had a debate with a previous Lex guest Richard Wolfe, where the fundamental disagreement was on how Destiny didn’t believe Wolfe had a coherent definition for socialism
Go try read a graduate microeconomics textbook. Mainstream economics is very rigorous in its definitons; to the point of using set theory and real analysis as its building blocks. There's nothing vague about it. A common criticism is in fact the exact opposite.
@Down with Corporate Amerika when was libertarianism tried? Maybe early USA but that wasn’t really a catastrophe either, but it probably wasn’t preferable. I agree that libertarianism probably doesnt work for a society, but i would love to know more about real life examples.
Marx's genius was his analysis of Capitalism. His magnum opus was titled Das Capital. His conclusions and prescriptions were a much smaller focus of his.
A redbox is able to convert 1 persons 8 hour labor into the operation of 100+ blockbuster stores running 24/7 365. Technology amplifies a persons utility. If we had a Value Added Tax then 1 Redbox would be paying as much tax as 1 Blockbuster, where as today they are paying 100 times less taxes due to the reduction in labor costs. One observation is that our government runs off of the tax on labor, but the GDP per unit of labor cost is amplifying with the technology curve. Technology allows unskilled labor to provide more and more value and a minimum wage can be more easily justified. Just some thoughts.
Netflix spent close to $12 billion in content in 2020 while the most expensive subscription cost only $20. How much would it cost to rent every DVD in blockbuster? That's another thing to think about.
@@atianfirebolt8125 I completely agree. In capitalism nobody is taking your money or your labor, we give it freely. There is a reason that after the stimulus checks were cut apple and amazon got rich. They didn't hack into everyone's bank accounts and withdraw the money, people value apple and amazon products more than the money they had, so they exchanged it. Netflix adds value to the user, and they are able to distribute that value more efficiently than blockbuster ever could. That efficiency allows them to charge less, add more value and ultimately also make a ton of money in the process. Where capitalism falls short is in cronyism and anti-competitive behavior. This can also be found in the oligarchs of marxism. Another way to read this is humans are selfish and greedy. We need to make sure we encourage options and choices so that we can minimize the greed any human can exploit.
There is a lot of money to be made by innovating and creating new efficiency. Just look at the example with Netflix. That’s what we want to flourish. It’s the consolidation of companies and the purchasing of competitors that we want to avoid because that decreases a company’s likelihood of innovation. Why innovate if you can just buy anyone who comes along and threatens your market dominance.
@@seanreynoldscs "There is a lot of money to be made by innovating and creating new efficiency." assuming there remains enough of a workforce to keep money circulating to purchase your innovation / automation? or do you believe the extremely wealthy 3% will keep the larger population afloat for their entertainment and produce a false economy?
This argument is missing the point completely. Before even discussing what "creates value", the basic problem is that communism relies on centralized power, which never works in terms of benefits for the wider population in a society, increasing quality of life, alleviating poverty, and such.
I'll give credit for at least arguing with ideas instead of the lazy ad hominems that other anti-Marxists lob. The problem with your rebuttal is that it's somewhat of a straw man. Marxism (at least, it's counterproposal to capitalism) isn't centralized control - at least not necessarily. It's about socialized (or democratic ownership) of the means of production. It's more about a democratic and egalitarian "bottom-up" economy than a top-down one. Centralized control, such as with the Soviet and eastern Socialist models, are but one alternative to capitalism, even though it's an awful and inhuman one. But centralization itself isn't what Marxism is per se. Centralization has more to do with statism consistent with a fascist philosophy. To say that leftism is "just centralization" is a Libertarian-right strawman of Marxism which completely disregards libertarian-leftism and anarcho-leftism. The end goal of socialism (communism) is supposed to be a moneyless, stateless, and agrarian society where workers own the machines and engage in somewhat of a barter system. It's more akin to anarchism than fascism. The social democrats and anarcho-communists have been trying to make this point for decades.
He’s not talking about communism, but fundamental ideas of marx which he developed years after he wrote the communist manifesto. Dude was 30 when he wrote the manifesti, whereas das kapital came nearly two decades after that.
@Red Genuinely curious. How that can be achieved without massive redistribution of wealth and coercive control after. Even if let's say everyone awaken "class consciousness" at the same time and decide to equally redistribute everything in a village such that 100 people have 100 gold coins and 100 acres of land. How would the socialised ownership work? Through voting? If 20 people want to grow corn and rest want to grow wheat. Do the 20 have to go with what rest want? Also how is the division of labour achieved in this context. If someone doesn't want to work but play flute all day, should the rest share in the fruits of the labour?
Centralized power is the reason why China has the most impressive infrastructure in the entire world. America's lack expert planning is why most of the country lacks fundamentally necessary amenities such as transportation.
@@Xpistos510 “The social democrats and anarcho-communists have been trying to make this point for decades” …while simultaneously fighting for, and abusing as much power and control as they can muster. Lol
arggh - reminds me of the 60's when you had all these brilliant minds communicating with each other, and the human beings listening to them trying to translate what they were saying into something that made sense to the non-mental aspects of human life - it's like we are regressing to a previous time... (imv) :)
He already had the bad thinker Yaron Brook for that. One can disagree with Marx's project, but those who say he was dumb don't even have a fraction of the guy's erudition, think of Jordan Peterson who had only read the communist manifesto as a teenager.
@@withnail-and-i Bakunin predicted that Marx’s refusal to condemn violence for political reasons would lead to a lot of death. He was right. You choose whether its demonic or moronic
@@nuclearnadal9385 Right. He just didn't get that Marx was a brilliant visionary with a plan for bringing perfect justice and prosperity to the world - as history has demonstrated. Nothing gets over your head.
the problem is he got markss idea but he cant simplify it enough for us mortals.Teaching any subject and keeping it simple or entertaining is something rarely teachers can do,when you learn to teach or explain on oversimplified interesting level-you gonna be a badass
Surely if Steve was so smart he wouldnt leave Lex (and most of us) looking so perplexed all the time? As Einstein said : If you cant explain it to a four year old child , then you probably dont understand it yourself.
it's quite simple, if you treat people like they are disposable objects they will get pissed and start a revolution Lex has a hard time understanding that since he has yet to disassociate true entrepreneurship from crony capitalism
@@rabbitsforyang8273 "if you treat people like they are disposable objects they will get pissed and start a revolution" - so people aren't currently being treated like disposable objects? What revolution?
@@fuckamericanidiot sure, but people are all intentionally divided and distracted, only works for a while though, which is why they are intent on starting a new Cold War and justify martial law
Amazing how he cultivated such an audience in the first place...perhaps inviting libertarian grifters regularly had something to do with it...but credit to Lex for presenting his audience a different perspective...
Never would you find the level of intellectual curiosity, honesty, and integrity displayed here in the sophistry of Jordan Peterson and his colleagues regarding Marx and Marxism. I hope this clip finds more people and changes the dialogue.
It seems like most of Marx's detractors view him as somehow being partially responsible for the horrors committed by some of the regimes throughout history who were inspired by his work. But very few think the same of Nietzsche who's theory of the Ubermench heavily influenced the tenants of Nazism.
@@MrZomBie775 sure. And I think for Marx that discussion is worth having. But critical engagement is productive and nuanced, trying to overcome the contradictions of thinkers/writers, not for dumbing down the discourse so daily wire will write you a cheque and Ben Shapiro will invite onto his pod. It’s pseudo intellectualism at best 😂
the problem with economic ideologies is, that it's not enough to create a good economic system that works as it's designed to work...... it's also about how "bullet-proof" it is to human corruption, because corruption will always eventually happen in EVERY system...... and history showed us, that corruption in communist/socialist system has FAR MORE severe consequences for average citizen, than capitalism ever had...... it's like building a car...... a good car is the one which not only drives great, but also is relatively safe when you crash it....... and that's obviously NOT the case of Marx's economic ideology
This was a very convoluted explanation to eventually reach the same marginal utility explanation of the worker with regard to working in a factory… that somehow, under this explanation, aligns with what Marx was saying?
Lex, you are lucky, there is an english translation of the three books “Das Kapital”. Read them, with colleagues at best, from the beginning to the end, and you will understand the method of the investigation of the economy as well as the laws of the system of the capitalist economy. There is no shortcut because the capitalist economic system is a complex system where every piece has its special function and is interconnected in a special way with the whole system. Marx mention this in the preface of the first volume.
I find a hard time distinguishing Marxists from religious fanatics. No matter how many real world proves you give them about why his uthopia did not/can not work, Marxists will have their Holy Book(of mostly word salad) from a prophet who sucked money from other people(current day megachurch owners would be jealous of Marx).
No royal road to science, folks. Maybe one should be suspicious of economic "theories" that are extremely simple -- especially if they happen to also be very bad at describing the world or predicting outcomes (like repeated economic crashes).
Love lex but his lack of basic economics is quite obvious here. The speaker goes on to discuss marginal utility and standard micro econ principles in order to discuss Marx and Lex clearly has a hard time grasping it. Labor in itself is treated as a commodity in basic economics and that is exactly what Marx is rebutting or rechallenging. If we can’t understand how labor is treated as a commodity we cannot understand marx.
Marxists Dialectics is about class struggle. Not about the tense of a worker who has to work for a living clashing with his desire to eat ice cream on the beach.
It’s both! For Marx, the worker’s societal obligation to produce surplus value for the capitalist is in contrast with his other human drives. That detail helps explain why there is conflict between the two classes.
Actually, class struggle (today) is about the clash between the nature of exploitation (subject to subject) and the fact that, in order for a system to exploit everyone (not just workers) it needs individuals to truly identify with that nature. In our time, that is “the free subject” (weather he eats an ice cream or his boss’s, that’s free choice for ya).
thats class struggle too , the continuos existencial struggle of being both a human who needs time and money to enjoy life and a commodity of labor who needs to be exploited to the very last drop.
Almost none of those ideas were generated by Marx. A lot came from Engels but were otherwise generated by ghost writers and ghost philosophers from an international intelligentsia. Marx was a puppet for people like the Phillips family and the House of Windsor. As much as I appreciate any and all discussions, especially facilitated by Lex, this is a dumbing conversation. Marx wasn't much different than your average politician or Hollywood celebrity. He is a deification for the mass, long term dialectic confrontation. I should point out that my intentions for commenting this here is not solely to be critical but to merely add to the conversation because we're talking about a human being who is long gone, and none of us should place 100 percent judgement on someone who has passed that long ago. We all must share our knowledge. So I appreciate this video. But I must stress that Karl Marx is a nonsensical character in an economic military project for human domestication.
Hegel was the real genius, Marx attempted to assimilate Hegelian concepts under the platform of labor & narrative control. Hegel was more interested in the intuitive meaning of utopian paradigms and how government structures- language structures, by dialectic, provide proof for arguments that lead to civil development and change toward a human utopia-- the flowering and fruiting of human civilization(s) and human conscience.
The more I learn about Marx and the ism there of, the more I realize his critics are undeniably right. The tribal analysis given is wrong, and its provides an excellent window into how Marx thinks. If you are wrong about the past and the present - you will not be right about the future.
Ok, so the father of economics and the concept of capitalism, adam smith was also wrong about ancient societies being primarily based on barter, even tho it theoretically made sense. But lo and behold, capitalism is still working just fine.
@@art-ificialblon-die7013 Because capitalism isn't a system, is more like a think than happens, its simply the acumulation of good than don't perish instantanly after work, from dried fish and grains to metals. Free market is a sistem, wih was Adam Smith proposal, tough the school of salamanca had already proven than the value of something was not work, but what the people/market considered it worth. A signature of mine doesn't have any worth, the signature of Tolkien in his first edition book I bet could end costing millions.
If Marx was such a genius then why did he struggle to understand value? If labor determines value then a painting by Jackson pollock should be far less valuable than an Aaron bushnell.
Artists exist outside of the economic relations Marx is describing. They do not operate within a capitalist mode of production. The high price tag on a Pollock is not determined by the cost of the materials or the labour time but by its perceived qualitative value to the culture. To pick that as an example to debunk Marx doesn't make sense, I mean, what percentage of the economy does "art" account for?
Ok would like to have the monopoly of selling ice cubes in antartica or of selling wine in a society of non-drinkers? Explain value as based on labor now, genius.
@@juanmilano224 obviously no capitalist firm would establish a monopoly of ice in Antarctica because ice is so abundant there. What would be the point? Doesn't require any labour to produce it. Anyone can just scoop ice off the ground so it has no economic value.
Can anyone tell me who wrote this line in one of his poems Thus Heaven I've forfeited, I know it full well.My soul, once true to God, Is chosen for Hell.
I am into Austrian econ (decentralized econ) but i still have a lot of respect for Steve Keen since he makes some very valid points regarding the fact that humans cannot consume if they run out of materials. I also respect marx as a philosopher who makes you "think" but Marx is very wrong about a lot of things. Even in this discussion they never addressed the fact that people "work" for others because it is more productive than working for yourself. in essence, the capitalist makes better use of the commodity that is labor than the individual can do for themselves.
Marx praises capitalism for the rapid production and growth that it’s capable of so in that sense I guess it uses labor more efficiently but at the cost of ethics.
Marx never said people should work for themselves but rather he talked about democratising the workspace, decisions regarding what to produce, how to produce and how much to produce should be taken democratically not just by the ones who own the means of production. He historically analysed the accumulation of large sums of capital and why it was unethical and filled with inherent contradictions. Marx was not god, he was wrong about things but so was Einstein. Marxism is not a stagnant tradition where everything written by Marx is the holy gospel but rather a continuous tradition. Best critiques of Marx are Marxists themselves.
@@jurrasicgrant2307 democratically owning a firm is very inefficient. moreover, it makes no sense for someone to start a firm and then hand over shares to their employees. why would capital take all the risk AND then lose all the reward by giving away equity to workers who take zero risk?
Steve Keen, like Marx, has the ability to obfuscate simple concepts like utility and marginal utility. Utility exists entirely in the minds of the actors. A "chair" has utility as a place to sit, a doorstop, a decoration, etc. Each additional chair has (marginally) less utility than the previous chair at a point in time.
Marx and his followers, conveniently work with a definition of capitalism that suits their ideological framework, not the actual definition of capitalism, which is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between two or more interested parties. This is a level of intellectual dishonesty that I can't overlook. Marx's criticism of capitalism is a value judgement of a man that (other than his intellectual pursuits and writing) was never a worker. Marx observed the working class of London from a Bohemian perch, living off of the inheritance of various family members with impunity and a perverse zeal. Most Marxists, and critical theorists for that matter, impose an assumption of victimhood on those they need to present as oppressed or disempowered. Not because they care, but because the existence of the oppressed creates a sense of self-importance while maintaining the the ideology for the sake of itself. Yes, capitalism has its perversions, exploitative corporatism, rabid consumerism and soulless commercialism. And with those perversions, Capitalism, the free market has gotten many people out of poverty and created wealth for many individuals. This could be through working odds jobs and saving money incrementally, investing, starting a business, creating and selling something that is uniquely their own that connects to millions of people. The same can't be said for Marxism. Purely. All Marxists have is the critique of half an idea at its worst and nothing to take its place but a Utopian abstract. And abstract that in the hands of psychopathic demagogues has caused the most severe of violations of humanity and the human spirit.
thank you for this. its spot on. capitalism is in many ways darwinian. its closely tied to our existence. and thats why it has a good side and a bad side but just like any evolutionarily system it seems to be trending towards more good than bad.
Capitalism is not the voluntary exahnge of goods between two parties , that has been a thing for humanity as long humanity exist lol ...Capitalism is well definend a sysyem of production where the means of production are owned by a private class " the capitalist" . Dont be a fool please hate marx and communism all you want but your defintion of capitalism its a joke for anyone even pro capitalist people who want to know about the topic.
@@GerardoHernandez-xt9hs i believe you are saying the following: - The Free Market is the voluntary exchange of goods and services (which has always been around) - Capitalism is when the means of production are owned by the private class. However, even in the free market the means of production are owned privately. Capitalism is simply when people pool "capital" to start a join venture. this was not possible until 200 years ago because there was not enough surplus wealth or coordination to do so. humans had to consume everything they produced. as we began to consume less than we produced we were able to take excess resources (time, energy, money, etc) and build machines that could then produce even more than we could consume. this goes on ad infinitem and makes Capitalism so powerful. Socialists consume everything they produce; thus, they have no additional resources to build machines to increase production. Capitalists consume less than they produce, which then gives them the ability to produce machines to produce even more. The best example of this is socialists wanting to tax everyone to spend more on X, y, Z for the poor. However, this means you have no capital to invest on machine that will make all of society more rich in the future. Capitalism gives money to those who are more efficient so they can make society even more efficient for future generations. Socialism wants to give resources to people who are less efficient because they think this is "morally good" but that leaves no resources to invent a better future. Socialism is great for a generation or two after capitalism have built up wealth but eventually there are no extra resources to go around because no one planned for the future.
@Down with Corporate Amerika lmao @ your name loser the american left are the biggest corporate bootlickers to exist and it get's worse, the left hates the working class
“All authors eager to construct an epistemological system of the sciences of human action according to the pattern of the natural sciences err lamentably.” -Ludwig Von Mises
Marx Wasn’t wrong per se about where the profit comes from, the machines are just past work, work, that has already been put into The Making of The Machine, So It, Has intrinsically, value and profit within, thanks also, by the production process of Machines
Observation... in an established business such as Pepsi, there is very little that the CEO does and Marx seems to be more on point. However there is value to the risk of entrepreneurs and there is a value to the RND of ideas that outpaces the value of manufacturing labor of the final goods. What Marx falls short on how much value an individual can add to the creation of a product. As an engineer I used to believe engineers provided all of the value and I begrudged how much sales and marketing made. However as I've matured I've realized if a sales person can generate enough work for an entire engineering department then that sales person should make a lot of money because they are single-handedly provided so much value to all of those engineers... likewise if it takes 100 sales members to provided the work for the engineering department then they should each make much much less. The wage of an individual should be representative of the value they add, and capitalism is the best mechanism for that distribution. I believe that a great career finds itself a the intersection of: What the world needs, What you enjoy and What you are good at. If you maximize those you will have a high paying and satisfying job in a capitalistic economy.
@@Joe-sg9ll Sorry, didn't mean to minimize the value to leadership. The goal was to show that the further you get from risk (pepsi is well established and their market share changes very little) and ideas ( pepsi clear is a once in 20 year idea that ultimately was canceled and added little extra value) ; the further you get from that the less value the leadership generates and ultimately the workers add MOST if not all of the value in that industry.
@@Joe-sg9ll Also, my goal was to see and understand Marx' perspective and apply it in a modern example where I can agree with it so that I could highlight the difference between that and other industries so that I could show what Marx may have missed.
Marx was a moron. There is only profit if the products are SOLD. The Capitalist risk LOSING money after paying the worker (guaranteed pay) if the product doesn't sell. Moreover, there is much more to creating a product than just making it. Decisions, management and planning have to be made, that make or break a business, which are not done by the worker. Also, there needs to be some incentive for business to do well. Name another one, other than profit? And things need to be stacked in favour of business because society would crumble if the majority of them failed. In summary. Worker = guaranteed pay and low risk outcomes. Owner = non-guaranteed profit and high risk actions.
You can easily tell that someone knows what they are talking about when they can explain it well even to a kid. In this case you can tell the person who was explaining was clueless :)
Dunning Kruger effect is a real deal monster! It turns ego based superheroes into mere mortals in just seconds. If everything could be so easily explained we wouldn't need books, libraries, educational institutions etc. Good luck little buddy.
@@nuclearnadal9385 "clueless" was an exaggeration. The man could be brilliant but he does not appears to understand this topic very well because he was unable to explain it well. Maybe the topic is too complicated but in most cases the simplest explanation is the correct one.
Genius indeed, Marx was a greedy/ selfish person when it came to money. He never paid his maid who worked for him. He also took advantage of his position as her boss and got her pregnant. He was so disgusting he literally demanded money from Engels (his sugar daddy) during the time he was grieving from his dead long term spouse. Engels refused to marry so this was essentially his wife and Marx wrote him… only mentioning her in the first few lines then he got down to asking for money as usual. Marx like many left wing radicals (Mao, Marx, D’Annunzio, Che, etc…) refused to bath, had horrible hygiene, and was a well known loser. Many radical leftist end up being disgusting and love to rape women. Che wrote about how he would rape his maid at 15 years old in front of his friends. D’Annunzio was a prolific rapist…. There are personality trends that you see in the left and the right even today. Bernie Sanders never had a job either. He was kicked out of a Socialist commune because he was too lazy. There have been countless studies that prove people on the left are less attractive, less muscular, etc…. people who are naturally losers tend to be drawn to a cult like religion which is leftism. They are willing to ignore science and all of economic history and data in order to believe in an egalitarian/ utopian future where humans don’t care about using their skills to benefit themselves or their families and instead will sacrifice for the collective. Imagine playing a basketball game against Michael Jordan and he simply allows you to tie with him… that’s what they literally want the future to be. If you’ve ever studied economics you know how useless Marxist theory is. Everything centers around his core claim of Labor Theory of Value…. without that nothing else works. If you’ve researched the Marginal Revolution then you know there’s no reasonable person alive who still follows Marx. Which is why it’s hilarious and sad to see people call themselves Marxist, Communist, Marxist researchers etc… it’s about as useful as analyzing a pile of dog poop for the meaning to the universe… a general waste of time as a human can only be as intelligent as the content they spend time indulging. I’m sure you’ve met people who have read everything Marx wrote and they speak about it so confidently, not knowing how dumb they sound to people who study economics and look at the facts in the real world rather than the cherry picked facts their gender studies professor shoved down their impressionable throats.
Bang on, dude. Every radical leftist revolutionaries, including the women, were unhygienic rapists. And all of them were communists. Certainly, radical rightists were civil gentlepeople.
@DRich1 I mean OP's comment is more akin to a character assassination of Marx than a critique of his work. In the video the guy interviewed basically says why he considers Marx a genius while explaining some of the concepts that Marx wrote about but OP just says in one paragraph that Marx's work is dogshit and useless if you ever studied economics (even though the guy in the vid is like an economist I think ? Idk who he is) but doesn't elaborate on why except by saying that his labor theory of value is useless. OP prefers spending more time talking about how Marx starved his children and other things, which wouldn't make him a good person but wouldn't make him not a genius (plenty of people we consider geniuses have also been batshit crazy in other sides of their lives or did things like abusing their partners of something). Am I triggered ? I think I would know if I was Is OP triggered ? Idk, maybe, that's why I asked if he's ok ^^
Understanding leftist economics requires a kind of temporary amnesia of your own observation of the way people use and trade resources, to replace it with a kind of gobbledygook that at its foundation places some ideal above rational, objective considerations. Its like you listen to them talk and you know things don't work that way but lets see where this goes.
Y'know a capitalist talking about stock markets, derivatives etc. would sound ridiculous to a 13th century person too. Bartering and trade is not something that would cease to exist, but there would be public rather than private control over production.
@@iancuninghame9163 "Y'know a capitalist talking about stock markets, derivatives etc. would sound ridiculous to a 13th century person too" and ? They probably wouldn't understand mechanization either. "Bartering and trade is not something that would cease to exist, but there would be public rather than private control over production." Trade occurred between individuals before groups it stands to reason that private ownership or possession of resources is a natural consideration.
@@jahgol private ownership doesnt equal personal ownership, though, in a Marxist lens: an individual would still have belongings (and small scale private businesses are sometimes allowed on the road to communism). Currently, privately owned corporations produce the resources the market demands, and publicly run cooperatives in their replacement would too, maybe directed by a central government. Plenty of problems with different implementations of that idea, and the ability of an individual to accumulate wealth and invest in different ideas would be limited, but trade and barter would still exist, even if its on a small person-to-person scale in a highly planned economy. And then of course Marxists define real communism (as opposed to socialist states run by the Communist Party) as a stateless, classless society, which would still need to produce resources and distribute them somehow.
Referring to your comment "communism relies on centralized power" you only think this way because you believe the likes of CCP represent communism but if you read what actually is "communism" you would understand it is a set of principles that are nothing more than theory having never been enacted so communism hasn't ever been tested. The theory relies on an mutual sense of awareness to the extent whereby for example one of the many principle being "money" is worthless because there is no need to take possession, now we might not be able to conceive this idea but if you were to go back in time a few hundred years and try to describe the modern world, most couldn't envisage and would call you a crazy. Also you say centralized power doesn't work but what is our representative democracy if not centralized and controlled for the disproportionate benefit of a small minority while the majority are exploited, this is where socialism or more accurately put "direct democracy" is used starting in workplace, local community then moving to central government. Remember the small wealthy elites like their power and will use every means possible to miss inform and keep it!
Marx was a rich German Jew for a start. He had some great ideas even his "manuals" for communism were quite different of what later, after successful coup financed by Germany became known as communist soviet union. Not to forgot his colleague Frederich Engels.
@@GeorgeSorrow Marx was wrong about "Value". Marx had no solutions. I have the solution. it is called ' The system of optimal self-sustaining distribution of Wealth and the Power among the citizens and the Nations'.
@@GeorgeSorrow 1) The secret the Wealthy hide from the world is that The market is a free access problem and if you do not want the inevitable 'tragedy of the commons' scenarios on the market and the monopolies it consequently creates then you better ask for laws that set constraints to ensure tragedy of the commons does not happen. The market is a free access problem! 2) 3) etc. any more questions?
Great interview as always. At 7:00 he gets too utopian for my taste. I’ll take capitalism over tribalism. Others may allow their imagination to unfold what imagery we have for capitalist economy versus an idyllic or waring tribalism. It all depends. Ask genghis khan, Cherokee or places in Africa. Really enjoyed the conversation as always though.
I don't think he was abdicating for a return to tribalism. He was indicating the changes in social relationships between the two. Though, his observation does suggest a more socially beneficial relationship between them.
@@stvwds61 Agreed. It’s kind of stupid to look at this as “capitalism vs socialism” when pretty much every economy in the world is a mix of both. It’s more a question of how much from column A and how much from column B would give us the best social outcomes.
If Marx is soo smart, how come he’s dead?
Hmmmm you could be onto something 🤔
your logic is sound and unwavering. Marx is dumb dumb.
Socialism and communism has fallen to 0% after this brilliant observation
He is not dead, although he is not with us but he is all around us, if you pay attention, and as Richard Fayman said " knowledge is very costly you need to pay attention ".
death goes where there is socialism. Life is where capitalism shines. If only old people would understand this more
Economics is generally regarded as a social science, although some critics of the field argue that economics falls short of the definition of a science for a number of reasons, including a lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones.
Evolutionary Economics helps put it on a more solid scientific foundation. We need a study of Evolutionary Political Economy.
science is not about consensus. Testing Hypothesis in social sciences(everything beyond hardware psychology) is done through watching history developing. You cant predict humans with a 100% certainty, its probabilistic.
search this term "Methodological Dualism", theres an interesting rabbit hole for you, bro.
Best wishes.
Lol stop
Absolutely correct!
You just wanted to post something but messed it up with this ridiculous retort.
Breath of fresh air to hear a intelligible understanding of Marx rather than the usual contrarian ranting akin to sports rivalries.
Well he was responsible for starving a couple of his kids to death.... But I'm sure he was a nice guy 🙄
@@jonnybyrne989 every major thinker in history is responsible for starving a few kids by that rationale. Same is true of Nietzsche, Plato and so many other who were interpreted and then resulted in deaths. Communism can be blamed on Marx more than Nazism on Nietzsche or the Crusades on Christ, but let’s not go pinning all ideological deaths on the originator of the idea. Dangerous grounds.
@@jonnybyrne989 Categorically false. Look up the infant mortality rates in mid 19th century London and the diseases that befell him and his family. If you have an issue with his ideas then take the time to engage them, but this ad hominem doesn't lend any credence to your position.
@@sandollor he cheated on his wife an had a bunch of s.t.d's he came from a rich family an felt patronizingly guilty for it... I find it hilarious all socialist an communist thinkers are people who come from wealth telling poor people how to live.... His ideas were tryed over an over again in the 20 century which resulted in mass genocide... But I'm sure there are people still out there believing that communism hasn't been tryed the way they see it.... Also why wasn't there more people trying to escape to east Germany back in the day, as opposed to the other way around.... 🤔
Yeah no lol
This didn’t really explain why Marx was a genius as the title suggests.
Because he wasn't.
@@gbennett58 Pretty much this.
Ya I didn't even hit play. I came here to see all the bootlicker comments about Marxism.
@@jordanroberts7931 lol the irony has reached Marxist levels of stupid right here!
@@jordanroberts7931 Karl Marx is the Che Guevara of the modern age.
I wish people they were interested in economics which we all should be would look more into general economic theory and listen to people from all different sides. Lex is the man.
This is interesting to hear this explained this way.
Das Kapital has a subtitle: "critique of the political economy". It's a critique of the field of economics as it was established and practiced during Marx time. Marx DOES NOT subscribe to the 'labor theory of value', it's Smith and Ricardo, whom Marx cites, who are proponents of that theory. Anyone saying Marx wants you to believe in labor theory of value has never studied Marx and can be dismissed on the topic of Marx immediately.
Marx seemed to think that LTV was, or could be, *a* theory of value - not *the* theory of value.
He incorporates and builds off of the LTV. I'm curious what specific criticisms he had of it or how he specifically adapted it.
I do not claim in any way to be as smart as Steve Keen… but I was lucky enough to have 1/2 lecturers who told me “question everything” - and 1 in particular who said “question everything, especially what the university and the textbooks tell you. If you can test it or find e evidence for it, fine. But if not look for the truth on your own”.
hes an ideological communist
also hes horrible at explaining utility because he doest even understand the definition
Yes it applies to machines but machines doesn't creat the value and if what you said is true American corporate didn't move the production to China and also if you have machines all over the place and replace the labor of human they will not sale anything because the purchasing power would be impacted or it would cease to be. Marx was fully aware of the role of machines in capital processes and as far as I know he didn't make a mistake.
Machines might have a bigger impact then before but there is still plenty of people needed in manifacture.
Besides there is a huge % of population in service jobs:
Cleaning, entertainment, banks, analytics, waiters...
That have wages and still need to buy what factories produce
I think thats kinda the whole point of communism is that we no longer need money
I was an economics major and I know for a fact that most students that want to study more marxism after graduation do so just because you dont need to use math and statistics..
Ah so just like regular economics then
Save that math and stats are what proves the difference between hypothesis and theory..
So, you're telling us you went to university, and you form sentences like that?
if that were true, an equal amount of students would study Austrian economics. since that's not true, i sense that there's an idealogically component to their choice.
Your telling me people take on extracurricular studying and pick to study something they don’t care about so it’s easier? Yeah I started a diet so I could eat burgers everyday, started working out just because I wanted to cheat reps too. I also bred my dog so I could give the puppies to the pound
i find it hard to believe this guy actually studied marx, the amount of basic errors any junior scholar of marx would never make is astounding.
for example marx never said machinery didn't add value to a production process, that's complete nonsense
Hes obviously enthusiastic and has read a lot but he also seems scatter brained. He goes all over the place and cant really explain one thing simply and clearly
Id guess hes like a popular writer on economics or something?
That's the one claim that Keen makes which is objectively incorrect.
Keen understands Marx pretty well (apart from that).
lol "scholar of marx" tell me you've never really worked or produced anything of value without telling me you've worked. Just like Marx's mother said about him "if only Karl had made capital, instead of writing about it."
@@Victor-wu1mu i work more than 50 hours a week in an average week but whatever you say loser.
None of these people ever talk about Marx's vision for the nuclear family. To Marx's credit, a vision his own family life contradicted utterly.
His family life was chaotic disaster.
He couldn't afford to support them. He was a brothel creeper. Two of his daughters committed suicide. He had a illegitimate child with his unpaid housekeeper who he blamed Engels for fathering
@@carloandreaguilar5916 As a adult he ponced off his family, then her family, then Engels. Despite the money his daughter received, two of his daughters committed suicide. His illegitimate son was shunned and ignored. He was a frequent brothel customer in the times when 13 and 14 year old girls were bought to service patrons
Engels had 2 factories, did he do any thing to improve the life of the workforce ?
The pair of them were frauds and a curse to their families
And virulent racists, forget to mention that
@@carloandreaguilar5916 He got his start in 1843.
He treated the people closest to him appallingly. He was a pseudo intellectual, narcissistic fraud . His best mate, and co conspirator Engels did nothing to improve the lives of his workforce, some of whom were children working in his factories.
He revered by the far left as a prophet and a patriarch. His ideology killed 100,000,000 people in a century. Enslaved, tortured and starved another half billion.
Every country, in every society it's failed with catastrophic results
His ideas are for fools, frauds, and failures
@@jazztheglass6139 I'm probably the last person anyone would consider a defender of Karl Marx, but, He loved his children and Jenny Marx, his wife. He was emotionally shattered by the deaths of the four Marx children who didn't survive to adulthood. It's important to remember the humanity of these persons regardless of the harm their ideas have done.
@@jazztheglass6139 Are you trying to make a straw man ffrom Marx? xD
Imagine all the productive things you could do with your time instead of studying Marxist theory.
Studying Marxist theory or otherwise is quite productive, really.
Studying it with a critical mind is not a waste of time.
@Roberto Vidal Garcia People have been studying that dude for many decades, Marxism doesn't lead to liberation, it leads to economic collapse...which is why it's being pushed. The wealthy want to destroy everything so they can buy it up.
Studying anarcho-communist theory , right?
but studying Platoo, Aristotle, Séneca, Plotinus, Philo of Alexandria, pseudo Dionisio of Areopagita, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas, Descartes, Hume, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Berkeley, Leibniz, Wolf, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Russel, Whitehead, Frégé, Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Quine, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Lévinas, Marcuse, Adorno, etc etc etc isn't useful? even to understand the history of thought that are part of the actual common sense and we usually don't examine? knowing more o developing a good understanding of logic, politics, metaphysics, ontology, theology, ethics, history? Perhaps the mentioned could contradict your understanding of the world, but isn't a reason to cry or feeling that you're wasting your time because a couple of dead dude hurt your feelings.
Maybe he just didn't explain it correctly, but it seems like Keen has no understanding of Marginal Utility. He has mentioned nothing about ordinal preference but has talked about magnitudes of "utility". There is no cardinal magnitude of utility. Man can only choose one use over another. Value on the margins means when a unit of a good is lost, it's value becomes the next subjective use value of the good. Meaning a good's value is only the utility of the good at it's next lowest subjective value. Marx made this mistake in the 1st page of Das Kapital.
Diminishing marginal utility just means you would be willing to pay less for the the next unit of the same good, regardless of what they are charging for it. This is because you get your fill of it and you are less interested in the next unit of it than the last.
A genius indeed. Economic destruction of the eastern hemisphere with hundreds of millions dead on the trail. What a guy he was
You should open a book sometimes and check your facts before write on the internet, pal.
@@forthelasttimeisfedericono4726 Always funny to see you cultists get triggered when your religion is criticized 🤡
He didn't actually do those things. He's no more responsible for that than Nietzsche is for Nazism. He was a sociologist, economist, and philosopher more than a political leader.
@@JeffCaplan313 Judge the person and literature also.
Wasn’t Jesus depicted as selfless and an outspoken practitioner of non-violence? Marx never condemned the use of violence, if anything he supported it in nearly everything he’s ever said. He also was a rabid anti semite - not a good human being in any sense.
@@Xpistos510 except for when he said seize the means of production. If that's not an incitement of violence than you must think the George floyd riots were peaceful protests
This guy just said there was no social hierarchy in cro-magnon days lol
The social hierarchy was different, it didn't depend on what you possess but on your ability to adapt and thrive inside the culture and human relationship of your tribe (a bit like high school, there was the cool kids and the weirdos). It's so different that saying that social hierarchy didn't exist is actually accurate.
@@ledernierutopiste what? It was very much dependant on your class and specialisation. Hunter/gatherer/healer/shaman. Inherited position of chief. In most cases hunters were above in the class hierarchy. The son of the chieftain still had access to best food. It's just that number classes were less, so it appeared to have less inequality.
How is that relevant to anything else he said?
@@DanielOrtaM it literally underpins his whole argument
He added "as we know today." Which makes sense. He then explained that there are still social titles and differences.
Karl Marx, the greatest WMD the West has ever deployed against the East.
That would actually be 2 bombs dropped on Japan, Agent Orange deployed in Vietnam, the drone strikes in the middle east, and many other acts of horror the west has inflicted on black and brown countries over the past 150 years. Capitalism is responsible for millions of deaths in the middle east alone in just the past 2 decades.
It's a mind virus that needs to be eradicated at all costs
?
🙄
And itself.
He was smart enough to tap money from his friends and never pay them back.
Sounds like ...every politician ever.
It's hilarious that conservatives get so pressed about Engels wanting to help support his friend lmao
Ayn Rand was hooked on methamphetamines and was collecting welfare when she died.
i think the point being made, was that Marx wasn't even capable of making money to feed his family, when the average man could. And he was the one to whine the most about it.@@nietzschefriend
@@drrydog Marx was disabled with chronic health issues and busy with political organization. Stay mad that communists like Engels actually have empathy for their friends
The blissful ignorance in this comment section is something really special
14:30 What mistake? It can't apply equally to machinery. Who produces, operates and maintains the machinery? Labour. Marx is saying, in exchange the natural properties and qualities and the humanity of labour is extinguished in exchange. It has to do with their different conceptions of property. Marx sees specifically human properties....the booj sees exclusive private property rights in terms of their possession, ownership and control of the means of production. These relations are not "subjective." They're based on the power and control of the ruling class. That's a objective material fact. It's got nothing to do with individual ideas about price and value. That is powerless. The power of the ruling class is collective. They have the law and the armed forces to back them up.
And what maintains the worker? Land, because workers have to eat. Now look we’re back to physiocratic economics….
@@kronus4915The "means of production" include land, labour and capital. In the development of industrial factory production for the mass market ALL of the factors of production have to be coordinated. The subsistence needs of labour have to be met or there's no workforce to employ. Land is everything that's on, under and over the land. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries were all industrialised into the bargain.
In Chinese history, it was very well known Marxism/Communism does not work for many certain industries, leading to starvation and lack of resources everywhere. It just didn't make sense to have a factory working 2 to 3 days of the week, producing just enough for consumption, in a fair distributed way, where people are paid nearly the same, so people abused powers and costs, ... many millions died, so in actuality, a lot of Chinese people in China dislike Communism. Today, administratively, China is like regional totalitarian, while their economy is pure capitalism mixed with socialism and "Chinese characteristics". "Chinese characteristics" simply means where state sponsored markets according to president XI's 5 year plans outlined.
Any deeper subjects, is limited to my own personal lack of knowledge. For more, can try reading "China and the West" (2019) by H. R. McMaster, Michael Pillsbury, Kishore Mahbubani, Huiyao Wang.
In my opinion, the biggest catalyst I believe the difference in western countries, is a 5 year plan or a 10 year plan, where all political parties can agree to uphold, instead of trashing the previous administration's plans when a new government gets elected. I also don't think it requires 5 years or 2 years for transgender pronouns. There are many other problems need to be fixed, such as more efficient logistics, faster transport high speed cargo trains, state to state energy utility transfer through batteries on edges of states interconnection, faster government services for people, distributed kiosks around cities where you can get birth certificates lost in one day, or tax papers in one day rather than 2 weeks, MRI machine is used a few times a week, while patients are waiting months for a scan, missing the golden window opportunity of diagnosis for screening, (similar to a factory only operating 2 days of the week versus busy all the weeks, then a maintenance period), better handling and severe punishments for corruptions (for example; offshore laundering, wall street stock manipulations, government spending reviews with transparency), sponsor and give full support to olympic athletes that are spending their everyday life to put their country's name on the board, etc.
China is definetly more socialist than the US is capitalist, most of the founding for research is made by the government, you have an enourmous military and constant interference in the economy. You are wrong in your definitions but I appreaciate that you took the time to discuss this in a serious optic.
God damn transvestites
@Danny Knapp there is no capitalist country in the world, you have widely diffused capitalist concepts and the same with socialism.
@@LeonardoGPN if not capitalist then what are we living under?
He was such a genius, he knew how to completely use people and take them for everything g they had and do nothing in return
Is that actually true? Or just what you've been told?
@@DanielOrtaM just read the story of his life. He lived off everyone else.
@@cfnaround1585 he'd make a great capitalist then 😛
In all seriousness, Marx was a vicious polemicist and never made "use" of his friends
He had a skin condition that couldn't allow him to do real manual labor, and his handwriting sucked so much he couldn't be a secretary
The only reason Engels supported him is because he truly believed he was a genius (which I agree with)
@ so basically he was useless and offered no value but still thought he deserved what other people worked hard for. At least in capitalism, you get value for your money
@@cfnaround1585 Engels didn't work hard for his money, he was a factory owner :P
And Marx wasn't useless, socialists loved Dad Kapital
6:59 To even establish a context in which to lay out Marx's ideas, he has to make wildly inept and subjective statements about "tribal culture". Marxism and related modern-day "critical" theories rely on complete fantasy to explain human history and behavior. Perhaps Marx had some interesting ideas. But I've never heard anyone, not even his most ardent followers, claim his ideas have predictive or explanatory power in real-world economies or relationships.
@Down with Corporate Amerika Please tell us what specific evidence you have that our working class is more exploited than any other advanced nation?
@Down with Corporate Amerika Your claims are all based on selfishness, and none of these are caused by capitalism.
The reason most Americans can't take a month long vacation is because they are fiscally irresponsible, and I don't think it should be obligatory to pay for someone else's vacation when they aren't producing value during that time.
Healthcare and education have been decimated by government meddling. Administrative staff have increased exponentially alongside increased public spending in both of these fields.
In order to end capitalism then you would have to use government coercion and force to restrict private employment. This would result in mass incarceration, and lower quality of life for everyone but those with legislative power.
@@henryrollins9177 So, would you say that your quality of life is greater in Argentina than the average American?
Check out the economic theories of Anwar Shaikh. He took an engineering approach to economics, starting from the observed data and working back to see which economic models best predicted the real world data. He ended up at a foundation of Marx, Smith and Ricardo. Many of their original insights still predict our economy better than any modern economic theories.
On the first page of the chapter on Machinery in Capital, Marx says "the machine" is "a means for producing surplus-value". Marx's argument about value has to be understood in relation to the concepts of "abstract labour" and "socially necessary labour-time", but he is definitely not saying that machines like cranes "don't add value" in the sense Keen is implying. Quite the opposite.
Such an interesting convo 👌🏾
LOL. Except how Marx later admitted you have to "eliminate" half the population for his system to work. Details.
And keep the undesirables purged evermore. Need a good eugenetics program too. Lots of elimination of those in power too, to keep corruption down. Not to mention no room for competing ideas. It could work. Don't think I would make it through the selection process and not sure I would want to live with those who did,,, but it could work.
I wanted to add that every functional social group; from family to country scale has a mechanism to correct/ modify and remove those who do not fit expectations (punished/ kicked out of the house/ banished from tribe/ imprisoned/ executed).
Thanos...
Well, he started at home by eliminating 4 of his 7 children by starvation and neglect. Interestingly, that's how the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union eliminated so many, by starvation. Same in China. Starvation seems to be a theme with Marx's ideas.
Whereas Hobbesian neo-liberalism (the current paradigm across much of the US-centric West) relies on keeping more than half the population in subsistence-level poverty in order to drive the price of labour down for the tiny fraction at the top.
Marx wasn't about "eliminating" people, his focus was on removing the exploitative class as a force in society. Self-interest is a good thing, however self-interest that becomes anti-social, such as oligarchic capitalist or hegemonic "communist" models, is dangerous and destructive.
The problem was/is, that there is a small proportion of the population that is innately driven to be exploitative and anti-social. The success of oligarchs and hegemons relies on convincing those people who are not innately built that way that they have to act as though they are, or be exploited/eliminated. Hence good people do bad things in the name of self-interest, while bad people eat from gold plates and laugh at how easy they are to manipulate.
Where did Marx say that?
In India lots of people died of bad nicotine but our India government is highest share holders of India biggest tabacco company ITC. so they ban vaping not even other political group don't talk about it. Imagine how many individuals will save money
To a certain extent, Steve thinks for himself. He is able to criticize abstract contradictions in what Marx believed. Yet he (and others) fail to challenge the major premises upon which communism is built.
accepting some of Marx' critique of capitalism doesn't make you a communist
@@mchlnhs I agree.
Because communism, with human solidarity and dignity as its base principle, is surely worse than capitalism, with selfishness, exploitation, and no regard of negative externalities as its core, must be opposed at all costs, lest we create a world that's good for everyone.
@@ClarkPotter solidarity and dignity? Haha you mean misery and suffering
Unicorns and lucky charms
@@ClarkPotter Communism sells fiction that does not reflect reality, capitalism sells reality, even if it hurts you privileged feelings.
Steve Keen is great, he’s giving it to you straight 👏
Is he?
One aspect that didn't seem to get traction is *why* people trade their productivity. What is the cost base of an hour of labor? Why does the taxation authorities think it is zero? If it is truly zero, what is the basis for overtime loadings after a certain time worked in a day? At some point, a worker no longer wants to exchange his time for wages, at any price, implying that the cost base exceeds the wage offered. In my commentary, cost base is somewhat analogous to Steve's background.
Marx was, in fact, not a genius.
But you are....😂😂
When I talk to someone smarter and brilliant I make the same faces lex makes
He did the same thing when he first spoke to Danaher. Lex has an ego, and he doesn’t like when it’s challenged.
This guy is not brilliant. This is woo and he uses words to pad it.
Steve Keen, just like many post-Keynesians, use roundabout speech and flowery language to make it seem like they're smart. When you parse through what they're saying, you realize it's mostly nonsense.
Steve Keen is confused about Marx.
Nope. Because this guest is incapable of advancing our understanding of how the economic society works. Check out Milton Friedman and see the real world unfold with crystal clear explanations.
From my understanding, Marxism applies to the workplace. So labor unions and cooperatives are what he was talking about. The problem I see is that there is less and less work to be done so it's not going to be applicable in the future.
I'm a union tradesman. There’s tons of work in the trades, everyone is short handed. Very lucrative and honest work. I've been trying to get young people on board with labor unions in the trades for 10 years. All of that work is never going away, and if it does we have much bigger problems... Workplace transformation (in certain applicable sectors, robotics for example) will only create more room for technicians.
I’m pretty sure this is where UBI comes from.
The preferred outcome of productivity improvements is an increase of leisure time. What it has become is more profit for the company, executive pay increases and, shareholder return. The other side of the coin being stagnate wages, reduction of the middle class, reduced higher wage jobs in manufacturing, transition to a service based labor market resulting in less leisure(personal) time due to the necessity to work multiple jobs to survive.
The first book of the capital is about production (including workplace), second book is about the circulation process of money. And the third book is on macro economy.
You couldn't be more wrong about Marx's philosphy.
Just a random observation: I wonder if most of YT commenters are so anti-socialism/Marx/capitalism that I can barely find a comment saying "Great discussion" "had some good points from the other side, even if i don't agree". The same comments that are super common in other Lex's videos.
I hope that is not the case and YT comments are just mostly by people with certain views and like to hear only what they like
People who learn as much as they can are usually not so boastful about things
Prodigy of mobb deep had an album entitled the Hegelian Dialectic...the cover was full of cool and somewhat ominous imagery and symbolism and he was very lyrical about the illuminati.
Prodigy also called it The Book of Revelation so he was all over the place. Typical semi illiterate conspiracy theorists nut
There's a war going on outside no man is safe from
The problem I always have with listening to economists talk is the subjectivity and vagueness about every term they use.
Because no one understands economics.
That’s what happens when you get people who know what they’re trying to say but are never asked to elaborate. That’s the game of commentators
Streamer Destiny actually had a debate with a previous Lex guest Richard Wolfe, where the fundamental disagreement was on how Destiny didn’t believe Wolfe had a coherent definition for socialism
Go try read a graduate microeconomics textbook. Mainstream economics is very rigorous in its definitons; to the point of using set theory and real analysis as its building blocks. There's nothing vague about it. A common criticism is in fact the exact opposite.
because economics especially the marcoeconomics is all about (subjective) worldview
If all of your theories put into practice turn into garbage then your ideas can’t be that great
@Down with Corporate Amerika when was libertarianism tried? Maybe early USA but that wasn’t really a catastrophe either, but it probably wasn’t preferable. I agree that libertarianism probably doesnt work for a society, but i would love to know more about real life examples.
Which garbage ?
Marx's genius was his analysis of Capitalism. His magnum opus was titled Das Capital. His conclusions and prescriptions were a much smaller focus of his.
well, our world is pretty garbage right now so I guess weve never put any good theories to practice, huh?
A redbox is able to convert 1 persons 8 hour labor into the operation of 100+ blockbuster stores running 24/7 365. Technology amplifies a persons utility. If we had a Value Added Tax then 1 Redbox would be paying as much tax as 1 Blockbuster, where as today they are paying 100 times less taxes due to the reduction in labor costs. One observation is that our government runs off of the tax on labor, but the GDP per unit of labor cost is amplifying with the technology curve. Technology allows unskilled labor to provide more and more value and a minimum wage can be more easily justified. Just some thoughts.
Netflix spent close to $12 billion in content in 2020 while the most expensive subscription cost only $20. How much would it cost to rent every DVD in blockbuster? That's another thing to think about.
@@atianfirebolt8125 I completely agree. In capitalism nobody is taking your money or your labor, we give it freely. There is a reason that after the stimulus checks were cut apple and amazon got rich. They didn't hack into everyone's bank accounts and withdraw the money, people value apple and amazon products more than the money they had, so they exchanged it. Netflix adds value to the user, and they are able to distribute that value more efficiently than blockbuster ever could. That efficiency allows them to charge less, add more value and ultimately also make a ton of money in the process. Where capitalism falls short is in cronyism and anti-competitive behavior. This can also be found in the oligarchs of marxism. Another way to read this is humans are selfish and greedy. We need to make sure we encourage options and choices so that we can minimize the greed any human can exploit.
There is a lot of money to be made by innovating and creating new efficiency. Just look at the example with Netflix. That’s what we want to flourish. It’s the consolidation of companies and the purchasing of competitors that we want to avoid because that decreases a company’s likelihood of innovation. Why innovate if you can just buy anyone who comes along and threatens your market dominance.
@@seanreynoldscs "There is a lot of money to be made by innovating and creating new efficiency." assuming there remains enough of a workforce to keep money circulating to purchase your innovation / automation? or do you believe the extremely wealthy 3% will keep the larger population afloat for their entertainment and produce a false economy?
This argument is missing the point completely. Before even discussing what "creates value", the basic problem is that communism relies on centralized power, which never works in terms of benefits for the wider population in a society, increasing quality of life, alleviating poverty, and such.
I'll give credit for at least arguing with ideas instead of the lazy ad hominems that other anti-Marxists lob.
The problem with your rebuttal is that it's somewhat of a straw man. Marxism (at least, it's counterproposal to capitalism) isn't centralized control - at least not necessarily. It's about socialized (or democratic ownership) of the means of production. It's more about a democratic and egalitarian "bottom-up" economy than a top-down one.
Centralized control, such as with the Soviet and eastern Socialist models, are but one alternative to capitalism, even though it's an awful and inhuman one. But centralization itself isn't what Marxism is per se. Centralization has more to do with statism consistent with a fascist philosophy. To say that leftism is "just centralization" is a Libertarian-right strawman of Marxism which completely disregards libertarian-leftism and anarcho-leftism.
The end goal of socialism (communism) is supposed to be a moneyless, stateless, and agrarian society where workers own the machines and engage in somewhat of a barter system. It's more akin to anarchism than fascism.
The social democrats and anarcho-communists have been trying to make this point for decades.
He’s not talking about communism, but fundamental ideas of marx which he developed years after he wrote the communist manifesto. Dude was 30 when he wrote the manifesti, whereas das kapital came nearly two decades after that.
@Red Genuinely curious. How that can be achieved without massive redistribution of wealth and coercive control after. Even if let's say everyone awaken "class consciousness" at the same time and decide to equally redistribute everything in a village such that 100 people have 100 gold coins and 100 acres of land. How would the socialised ownership work? Through voting? If 20 people want to grow corn and rest want to grow wheat. Do the 20 have to go with what rest want? Also how is the division of labour achieved in this context. If someone doesn't want to work but play flute all day, should the rest share in the fruits of the labour?
Centralized power is the reason why China has the most impressive infrastructure in the entire world. America's lack expert planning is why most of the country lacks fundamentally necessary amenities such as transportation.
@@Xpistos510
“The social democrats and anarcho-communists have been trying to make this point for decades”
…while simultaneously fighting for, and abusing as much power and control as they can muster.
Lol
Imma try to get on this show in like 3 yrs
It's good to have goals. 👍
If you won the genetic lottery of being Jewish you have a higher chance, going by his past guests.
arggh - reminds me of the 60's when you had all these brilliant minds communicating with each other, and the human beings listening to them trying to translate what they were saying into something that made sense to the non-mental aspects of human life - it's like we are regressing to a previous time... (imv) :)
No, not at all. You are wrong.
@@amraceway well, there you have it :)
The only reason Marx is smart is that he convinced Engels to carry him financially most of his adult life
Steve is a fan of the show
Whens the "why Marx was a dumbass" episode?
The entire 20th century was an episode of that.
He already had the bad thinker Yaron Brook for that. One can disagree with Marx's project, but those who say he was dumb don't even have a fraction of the guy's erudition, think of Jordan Peterson who had only read the communist manifesto as a teenager.
@@withnail-and-i "Sophisticated thinker" is not an antonym for "dumbass". People have very sophisticated dumb thoughts all the time.
@@withnail-and-i Bakunin predicted that Marx’s refusal to condemn violence for political reasons would lead to a lot of death.
He was right.
You choose whether its demonic or moronic
@and Refering to the counter points on Marxism as "bad thinker" reveals your bias and refusal to consider both sides.
This guy says a lot without saying anything worthwhile.
The perfect UA-camr
He would make a great university professor. A lot of big terminology jumbled up.
Good way of saying it went over your head without saying it went over your head.
Don't worry you don't need to understand.. just keep picking your nose watching real housewives of Las vegas
@@nuclearnadal9385 Right. He just didn't get that Marx was a brilliant visionary with a plan for bringing perfect justice and prosperity to the world - as history has demonstrated. Nothing gets over your head.
Marx is a must read for me now. Thanks.
the problem is he got markss idea but he cant simplify it enough for us mortals.Teaching any subject and keeping it simple or entertaining is something rarely teachers can do,when you learn to teach or explain on oversimplified interesting level-you gonna be a badass
Steve Keen is confused about Marx.
Look up Marx's 3 Laws of Motion in 30 Minutes Michael Roberts.
Richard Wolff breaks it up and ignore those who have a finger in the Capitalist Pie
Please read Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk's "Karl Marx and the Close of His System"
Surely if Steve was so smart he wouldnt leave Lex (and most of us) looking so perplexed all the time? As Einstein said : If you cant explain it to a four year old child , then you probably dont understand it yourself.
I'm not seeing why Marx is a genius.
People like Lao Tzu are geniuses.
Marx isn't a very smart man.
it's quite simple, if you treat people like they are disposable objects they will get pissed and start a revolution
Lex has a hard time understanding that since he has yet to disassociate true entrepreneurship from crony capitalism
@@rabbitsforyang8273 "if you treat people like they are disposable objects they will get pissed and start a revolution" - so people aren't currently being treated like disposable objects? What revolution?
@@rabbitsforyang8273 Marxism, and Marxist are the ones that want revolution.
@@fuckamericanidiot sure, but people are all intentionally divided and distracted, only works for a while though, which is why they are intent on starting a new Cold War and justify martial law
I'm sure this will go over well with Lex's reactionary audience
Amazing how he cultivated such an audience in the first place...perhaps inviting libertarian grifters regularly had something to do with it...but credit to Lex for presenting his audience a different perspective...
I'm just realizing now what the Lex crowd is all about, and I'm disappointed.
Never would you find the level of intellectual curiosity, honesty, and integrity displayed here in the sophistry of Jordan Peterson and his colleagues regarding Marx and Marxism. I hope this clip finds more people and changes the dialogue.
It seems like most of Marx's detractors view him as somehow being partially responsible for the horrors committed by some of the regimes throughout history who were inspired by his work. But very few think the same of Nietzsche who's theory of the Ubermench heavily influenced the tenants of Nazism.
@@MrZomBie775 sure. And I think for Marx that discussion is worth having. But critical engagement is productive and nuanced, trying to overcome the contradictions of thinkers/writers, not for dumbing down the discourse so daily wire will write you a cheque and Ben Shapiro will invite onto his pod. It’s pseudo intellectualism at best 😂
the problem with economic ideologies is, that it's not enough to create a good economic system that works as it's designed to work...... it's also about how "bullet-proof" it is to human corruption, because corruption will always eventually happen in EVERY system...... and history showed us, that corruption in communist/socialist system has FAR MORE severe consequences for average citizen, than capitalism ever had...... it's like building a car...... a good car is the one which not only drives great, but also is relatively safe when you crash it....... and that's obviously NOT the case of Marx's economic ideology
Ted Wheelright was my hero. Where did he fit into the Political Economy split at Sydney University?
This was a very convoluted explanation to eventually reach the same marginal utility explanation of the worker with regard to working in a factory… that somehow, under this explanation, aligns with what Marx was saying?
Lex, you are lucky, there is an english translation of the three books “Das Kapital”. Read them, with colleagues at best, from the beginning to the end, and you will understand the method of the investigation of the economy as well as the laws of the system of the capitalist economy. There is no shortcut because the capitalist economic system is a complex system where every piece has its special function and is interconnected in a special way with the whole system. Marx mention this in the preface of the first volume.
I find a hard time distinguishing Marxists from religious fanatics. No matter how many real world proves you give them about why his uthopia did not/can not work, Marxists will have their Holy Book(of mostly word salad) from a prophet who sucked money from other people(current day megachurch owners would be jealous of Marx).
No royal road to science, folks.
Maybe one should be suspicious of economic "theories" that are extremely simple -- especially if they happen to also be very bad at describing the world or predicting outcomes (like repeated economic crashes).
@@rsavage-r2v Capital is far from simple
Love lex but his lack of basic economics is quite obvious here. The speaker goes on to discuss marginal utility and standard micro econ principles in order to discuss Marx and Lex clearly has a hard time grasping it. Labor in itself is treated as a commodity in basic economics and that is exactly what Marx is rebutting or rechallenging. If we can’t understand how labor is treated as a commodity we cannot understand marx.
labor is a commodity… what marx is saying is abstract and hard to understand in practice
Marxists Dialectics is about class struggle. Not about the tense of a worker who has to work for a living clashing with his desire to eat ice cream on the beach.
It’s both! For Marx, the worker’s societal obligation to produce surplus value for the capitalist is in contrast with his other human drives. That detail helps explain why there is conflict between the two classes.
Actually, class struggle (today) is about the clash between the nature of exploitation (subject to subject) and the fact that, in order for a system to exploit everyone (not just workers) it needs individuals to truly identify with that nature. In our time, that is “the free subject” (weather he eats an ice cream or his boss’s, that’s free choice for ya).
thats class struggle too , the continuos existencial struggle of being both a human who needs time and money to enjoy life and a commodity of labor who needs to be exploited to the very last drop.
Rolls eyes over naïveté on traditional society exchange. LOL I like Keen, but he could really do with a course in anthropologies,
Blah blah blah, what a waste of time!
Presenter is stoned.
Guest is on another planet
Marx didn't say "Labour is the only source of value"!!!
Nature as Well!
I think Keen in the 60's must have read Marx standing on his head smoking Pot!
Almost none of those ideas were generated by Marx. A lot came from Engels but were otherwise generated by ghost writers and ghost philosophers from an international intelligentsia. Marx was a puppet for people like the Phillips family and the House of Windsor. As much as I appreciate any and all discussions, especially facilitated by Lex, this is a dumbing conversation. Marx wasn't much different than your average politician or Hollywood celebrity. He is a deification for the mass, long term dialectic confrontation. I should point out that my intentions for commenting this here is not solely to be critical but to merely add to the conversation because we're talking about a human being who is long gone, and none of us should place 100 percent judgement on someone who has passed that long ago. We all must share our knowledge. So I appreciate this video. But I must stress that Karl Marx is a nonsensical character in an economic military project for human domestication.
Lex is a smart people Rogan! 😊
Hegel was the real genius, Marx attempted to assimilate Hegelian concepts under the platform of labor & narrative control. Hegel was more interested in the intuitive meaning of utopian paradigms and how government structures- language structures, by dialectic, provide proof for arguments that lead to civil development and change toward a human utopia-- the flowering and fruiting of human civilization(s) and human conscience.
this is theology, & for these guys the economic aspect of the equation is a variable that can be simply adjusted
The more I learn about Marx and the ism there of, the more I realize his critics are undeniably right. The tribal analysis given is wrong, and its provides an excellent window into how Marx thinks. If you are wrong about the past and the present - you will not be right about the future.
What does that comment even mean?
@@hampusheh Than if you input shit, the output will be shit too.
Ok, so the father of economics and the concept of capitalism, adam smith was also wrong about ancient societies being primarily based on barter, even tho it theoretically made sense. But lo and behold, capitalism is still working just fine.
@@art-ificialblon-die7013 Because capitalism isn't a system, is more like a think than happens, its simply the acumulation of good than don't perish instantanly after work, from dried fish and grains to metals. Free market is a sistem, wih was Adam Smith proposal, tough the school of salamanca had already proven than the value of something was not work, but what the people/market considered it worth. A signature of mine doesn't have any worth, the signature of Tolkien in his first edition book I bet could end costing millions.
@@yeraycatalangaspar195 No, it's a dumb guy trying to sound smart is my guess.
If Marx was such a genius then why did he struggle to understand value? If labor determines value then a painting by Jackson pollock should be far less valuable than an Aaron bushnell.
Sounds like you're the one struggling to understand what he said
@@Brewmaster757 Not at all. When we put malcontents on a pedestal we run into trouble.
Artists exist outside of the economic relations Marx is describing.
They do not operate within a capitalist mode of production. The high price tag on a Pollock is not determined by the cost of the materials or the labour time but by its perceived qualitative value to the culture.
To pick that as an example to debunk Marx doesn't make sense, I mean, what percentage of the economy does "art" account for?
Ok would like to have the monopoly of selling ice cubes in antartica or of selling wine in a society of non-drinkers?
Explain value as based on labor now, genius.
@@juanmilano224 obviously no capitalist firm would establish a monopoly of ice in Antarctica because ice is so abundant there. What would be the point? Doesn't require any labour to produce it. Anyone can just scoop ice off the ground so it has no economic value.
The biggest mooch in the universe.
Can anyone tell me who wrote this line in one of his poems Thus Heaven I've forfeited,
I know it full well.My soul, once true to God, Is chosen for Hell.
Maer was a genius at rationalizing the evasion of the focused mind.
I am into Austrian econ (decentralized econ) but i still have a lot of respect for Steve Keen since he makes some very valid points regarding the fact that humans cannot consume if they run out of materials. I also respect marx as a philosopher who makes you "think" but Marx is very wrong about a lot of things.
Even in this discussion they never addressed the fact that people "work" for others because it is more productive than working for yourself. in essence, the capitalist makes better use of the commodity that is labor than the individual can do for themselves.
Marx praises capitalism for the rapid production and growth that it’s capable of so in that sense I guess it uses labor more efficiently but at the cost of ethics.
@@mikeyfreeman5776 at the cost of ethics.
Marx never said people should work for themselves but rather he talked about democratising the workspace, decisions regarding what to produce, how to produce and how much to produce should be taken democratically not just by the ones who own the means of production. He historically analysed the accumulation of large sums of capital and why it was unethical and filled with inherent contradictions. Marx was not god, he was wrong about things but so was Einstein. Marxism is not a stagnant tradition where everything written by Marx is the holy gospel but rather a continuous tradition. Best critiques of Marx are Marxists themselves.
@@mikeyfreeman5776 what ethical issues? what is wrong about people choosing to work for others if it is more efficient than working for themselves?
@@jurrasicgrant2307 democratically owning a firm is very inefficient. moreover, it makes no sense for someone to start a firm and then hand over shares to their employees. why would capital take all the risk AND then lose all the reward by giving away equity to workers who take zero risk?
Steve Keen, like Marx, has the ability to obfuscate simple concepts like utility and marginal utility. Utility exists entirely in the minds of the actors. A "chair" has utility as a place to sit, a doorstop, a decoration, etc. Each additional chair has (marginally) less utility than the previous chair at a point in time.
Doesn't that apply with Money
@@GeorgeSorrow Yes.
Marx and his followers, conveniently work with a definition of capitalism that suits their ideological framework, not the actual definition of capitalism, which is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between two or more interested parties. This is a level of intellectual dishonesty that I can't overlook. Marx's criticism of capitalism is a value judgement of a man that (other than his intellectual pursuits and writing) was never a worker. Marx observed the working class of London from a Bohemian perch, living off of the inheritance of various family members with impunity and a perverse zeal. Most Marxists, and critical theorists for that matter, impose an assumption of victimhood on those they need to present as oppressed or disempowered. Not because they care, but because the existence of the oppressed creates a sense of self-importance while maintaining the the ideology for the sake of itself. Yes, capitalism has its perversions, exploitative corporatism, rabid consumerism and soulless commercialism. And with those perversions, Capitalism, the free market has gotten many people out of poverty and created wealth for many individuals. This could be through working odds jobs and saving money incrementally, investing, starting a business, creating and selling something that is uniquely their own that connects to millions of people. The same can't be said for Marxism. Purely. All Marxists have is the critique of half an idea at its worst and nothing to take its place but a Utopian abstract. And abstract that in the hands of psychopathic demagogues has caused the most severe of violations of humanity and the human spirit.
Well said! Thomas Sowell expounds on these ideas! Love to listen to him
thank you for this. its spot on.
capitalism is in many ways darwinian. its closely tied to our existence. and thats why it has a good side and a bad side but just like any evolutionarily system it seems to be trending towards more good than bad.
Capitalism is not the voluntary exahnge of goods between two parties , that has been a thing for humanity as long humanity exist lol ...Capitalism is well definend a sysyem of production where the means of production are owned by a private class " the capitalist" . Dont be a fool please hate marx and communism all you want but your defintion of capitalism its a joke for anyone even pro capitalist people who want to know about the topic.
@@GerardoHernandez-xt9hs i believe you are saying the following:
- The Free Market is the voluntary exchange of goods and services (which has always been around)
- Capitalism is when the means of production are owned by the private class.
However, even in the free market the means of production are owned privately.
Capitalism is simply when people pool "capital" to start a join venture. this was not possible until 200 years ago because there was not enough surplus wealth or coordination to do so. humans had to consume everything they produced. as we began to consume less than we produced we were able to take excess resources (time, energy, money, etc) and build machines that could then produce even more than we could consume. this goes on ad infinitem and makes Capitalism so powerful.
Socialists consume everything they produce; thus, they have no additional resources to build machines to increase production.
Capitalists consume less than they produce, which then gives them the ability to produce machines to produce even more.
The best example of this is socialists wanting to tax everyone to spend more on X, y, Z for the poor. However, this means you have no capital to invest on machine that will make all of society more rich in the future.
Capitalism gives money to those who are more efficient so they can make society even more efficient for future generations.
Socialism wants to give resources to people who are less efficient because they think this is "morally good" but that leaves no resources to invent a better future.
Socialism is great for a generation or two after capitalism have built up wealth but eventually there are no extra resources to go around because no one planned for the future.
@Down with Corporate Amerika lmao @ your name
loser
the american left are the biggest corporate bootlickers to exist
and it get's worse, the left hates the working class
“All authors eager to construct an epistemological system of the sciences of human action according to the pattern of the natural
sciences err lamentably.”
-Ludwig Von Mises
Marx Wasn’t wrong per se about where the profit comes from, the machines are just past work, work, that has already been put into The Making of The Machine, So It, Has intrinsically, value and profit within, thanks also, by the production process of Machines
Observation... in an established business such as Pepsi, there is very little that the CEO does and Marx seems to be more on point. However there is value to the risk of entrepreneurs and there is a value to the RND of ideas that outpaces the value of manufacturing labor of the final goods. What Marx falls short on how much value an individual can add to the creation of a product. As an engineer I used to believe engineers provided all of the value and I begrudged how much sales and marketing made. However as I've matured I've realized if a sales person can generate enough work for an entire engineering department then that sales person should make a lot of money because they are single-handedly provided so much value to all of those engineers... likewise if it takes 100 sales members to provided the work for the engineering department then they should each make much much less. The wage of an individual should be representative of the value they add, and capitalism is the best mechanism for that distribution. I believe that a great career finds itself a the intersection of: What the world needs, What you enjoy and What you are good at. If you maximize those you will have a high paying and satisfying job in a capitalistic economy.
@@Joe-sg9ll Sorry, didn't mean to minimize the value to leadership. The goal was to show that the further you get from risk (pepsi is well established and their market share changes very little) and ideas ( pepsi clear is a once in 20 year idea that ultimately was canceled and added little extra value) ; the further you get from that the less value the leadership generates and ultimately the workers add MOST if not all of the value in that industry.
@@Joe-sg9ll Also, my goal was to see and understand Marx' perspective and apply it in a modern example where I can agree with it so that I could highlight the difference between that and other industries so that I could show what Marx may have missed.
Coming from Soviet Russia and having recently visited the wasteland that Ukraine has become, doesn’t it kind of hurt to listen to this? Lex?
Marx was a moron.
There is only profit if the products are SOLD. The Capitalist risk LOSING money after paying the worker (guaranteed pay) if the product doesn't sell.
Moreover, there is much more to creating a product than just making it. Decisions, management and planning have to be made, that make or break a business, which are not done by the worker.
Also, there needs to be some incentive for business to do well. Name another one, other than profit?
And things need to be stacked in favour of business because society would crumble if the majority of them failed.
In summary.
Worker = guaranteed pay and low risk outcomes.
Owner = non-guaranteed profit and high risk actions.
The only thing youre proving here is how completely brainwashed by capitalist education/media/propaganda you are.
You can easily tell that someone knows what they are talking about when they can explain it well even to a kid. In this case you can tell the person who was explaining was clueless :)
I must be misunderstanding you. Surely you are not calling this brilliant man clueless.
Maybe you're not as smart as a kid
Dunning Kruger effect is a real deal monster! It turns ego based superheroes into mere mortals in just seconds. If everything could be so easily explained we wouldn't need books, libraries, educational institutions etc. Good luck little buddy.
@@nuclearnadal9385 "clueless" was an exaggeration. The man could be brilliant but he does not appears to understand this topic very well because he was unable to explain it well. Maybe the topic is too complicated but in most cases the simplest explanation is the correct one.
@@ivanpenkov maybe you should stick to your “how to change a lightbulb” vids that you’ve uploaded 🤷♂️
Genius indeed,
Marx was a greedy/ selfish person when it came to money.
He never paid his maid who worked for him. He also took advantage of his position as her boss and got her pregnant.
He was so disgusting he literally demanded money from Engels (his sugar daddy) during the time he was grieving from his dead long term spouse.
Engels refused to marry so this was essentially his wife and Marx wrote him… only mentioning her in the first few lines then he got down to asking for money as usual.
Marx like many left wing radicals (Mao, Marx, D’Annunzio, Che, etc…) refused to bath, had horrible hygiene, and was a well known loser.
Many radical leftist end up being disgusting and love to rape women. Che wrote about how he would rape his maid at 15 years old in front of his friends.
D’Annunzio was a prolific rapist….
There are personality trends that you see in the left and the right even today.
Bernie Sanders never had a job either. He was kicked out of a Socialist commune because he was too lazy.
There have been countless studies that prove people on the left are less attractive, less muscular, etc…. people who are naturally losers tend to be drawn to a cult like religion which is leftism.
They are willing to ignore science and all of economic history and data in order to believe in an egalitarian/ utopian future where humans don’t care about using their skills to benefit themselves or their families and instead will sacrifice for the collective.
Imagine playing a basketball game against Michael Jordan and he simply allows you to tie with him… that’s what they literally want the future to be.
If you’ve ever studied economics you know how useless Marxist theory is. Everything centers around his core claim of Labor Theory of Value…. without that nothing else works.
If you’ve researched the Marginal Revolution then you know there’s no reasonable person alive who still follows Marx. Which is why it’s hilarious and sad to see people call themselves Marxist, Communist, Marxist researchers etc… it’s about as useful as analyzing a pile of dog poop for the meaning to the universe… a general waste of time as a human can only be as intelligent as the content they spend time indulging. I’m sure you’ve met people who have read everything Marx wrote and they speak about it so confidently, not knowing how dumb they sound to people who study economics and look at the facts in the real world rather than the cherry picked facts their gender studies professor shoved down their impressionable throats.
cap
Bang on, dude. Every radical leftist revolutionaries, including the women, were unhygienic rapists. And all of them were communists. Certainly, radical rightists were civil gentlepeople.
I believe we refer to that as a strawman
You ok bro ?
@DRich1 I mean OP's comment is more akin to a character assassination of Marx than a critique of his work. In the video the guy interviewed basically says why he considers Marx a genius while explaining some of the concepts that Marx wrote about but OP just says in one paragraph that Marx's work is dogshit and useless if you ever studied economics (even though the guy in the vid is like an economist I think ? Idk who he is) but doesn't elaborate on why except by saying that his labor theory of value is useless. OP prefers spending more time talking about how Marx starved his children and other things, which wouldn't make him a good person but wouldn't make him not a genius (plenty of people we consider geniuses have also been batshit crazy in other sides of their lives or did things like abusing their partners of something).
Am I triggered ? I think I would know if I was
Is OP triggered ? Idk, maybe, that's why I asked if he's ok ^^
Deep is indeed good.
He pronounced Fichte wrong. In German you need to pronounce the "e" at the end., just like the "e" in Porsche.
Is selfishness just desperation? No. Vice versa? Maybe.
Understanding leftist economics requires a kind of temporary amnesia of your own observation of the way people use and trade resources, to replace it with a kind of gobbledygook that at its foundation places some ideal above rational, objective considerations.
Its like you listen to them talk and you know things don't work that way but lets see where this goes.
Y'know a capitalist talking about stock markets, derivatives etc. would sound ridiculous to a 13th century person too. Bartering and trade is not something that would cease to exist, but there would be public rather than private control over production.
@@iancuninghame9163 "Y'know a capitalist talking about stock markets, derivatives etc. would sound ridiculous to a 13th century person too" and ? They probably wouldn't understand mechanization either.
"Bartering and trade is not something that would cease to exist, but there would be public rather than private control over production."
Trade occurred between individuals before groups it stands to reason that private ownership or possession of resources is a natural consideration.
@@jahgol private ownership doesnt equal personal ownership, though, in a Marxist lens: an individual would still have belongings (and small scale private businesses are sometimes allowed on the road to communism).
Currently, privately owned corporations produce the resources the market demands, and publicly run cooperatives in their replacement would too, maybe directed by a central government. Plenty of problems with different implementations of that idea, and the ability of an individual to accumulate wealth and invest in different ideas would be limited, but trade and barter would still exist, even if its on a small person-to-person scale in a highly planned economy.
And then of course Marxists define real communism (as opposed to socialist states run by the Communist Party) as a stateless, classless society, which would still need to produce resources and distribute them somehow.
Referring to your comment "communism relies on centralized power" you only think this way because you believe the likes of CCP represent communism but if you read what actually is "communism" you would understand it is a set of principles that are nothing more than theory having never been enacted so communism hasn't ever been tested.
The theory relies on an mutual sense of awareness to the extent whereby for example one of the many principle being "money" is worthless because there is no need to take possession, now we might not be able to conceive this idea but if you were to go back in time a few hundred years and try to describe the modern world, most couldn't envisage and would call you a crazy.
Also you say centralized power doesn't work but what is our representative democracy if not centralized and controlled for the disproportionate benefit of a small minority while the majority are exploited, this is where socialism or more accurately put "direct democracy" is used starting in workplace, local community then moving to central government.
Remember the small wealthy elites like their power and will use every means possible to miss inform and keep it!
Lex is SO slow once it comes to Economics theory. So do most physicists and biologists (most scientists)…. I find it fascinating…..
There is only one thing worse than being exploited in capitalism - not being exploited. Marx.
anyone know what he means by "back when universities were democratic"?
democratic when anyone could get access to university regardless of wealth
Marx was a rich German Jew for a start. He had some great ideas even his "manuals" for communism were quite different of what later, after successful coup financed by Germany became known as communist soviet union. Not to forgot his colleague Frederich Engels.
His ideas caused the slaughtering of 10’s of millions of people in Russia and China.
Background is all the lovemaking we do as humans...
- Karl Marx
Steve Keen is confused about Marx.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 confused about Marx but your not?
@@GeorgeSorrow
Marx was wrong about "Value". Marx had no solutions. I have the solution. it is called ' The system of optimal self-sustaining distribution of Wealth and the Power among the citizens and the Nations'.
@@reasonerenlightened2456Please enlighten me?
@@GeorgeSorrow
1) The secret the Wealthy hide from the world is that The market is a free access problem and if you do not want the inevitable 'tragedy of the commons' scenarios on the market and the monopolies it consequently creates then you better ask for laws that set constraints to ensure tragedy of the commons does not happen. The market is a free access problem!
2)
3)
etc.
any more questions?
Great interview as always. At 7:00 he gets too utopian for my taste. I’ll take capitalism over tribalism. Others may allow their imagination to unfold what imagery we have for capitalist economy versus an idyllic or waring tribalism. It all depends. Ask genghis khan, Cherokee or places in Africa. Really enjoyed the conversation as always though.
I don't think he was abdicating for a return to tribalism. He was indicating the changes in social relationships between the two. Though, his observation does suggest a more socially beneficial relationship between them.
@@stvwds61
Agreed. It’s kind of stupid to look at this as “capitalism vs socialism” when pretty much every economy in the world is a mix of both. It’s more a question of how much from column A and how much from column B would give us the best social outcomes.
Shoutout kmart for their $2 back scratchers
Marx was a genius at sponging off of his friends. Dude didn't work a single hour of his life.
the most amazing thing I learned from this is the past tense form of leapfrog being "leptfrog". Blew my mind.
"Gibs me dat for free" ~ Karl Marx. A true visionary.
Can we all agree that the Hagelian Dialectic is a rhetorical device for the purpose legitimising baseless claims.
5:03 What? Has he not read critique of the Gotha programme?
That’s a stretch.
School - "from Greek skholē "spare time, leisure, rest, ease; idleness; that in which leisure is employed; learned discussion;""
Why is Lex cutting his own bangs?
... inflation
"deep is good" - that's what she said!!!!!!!!