Geezer at 0:36 - I've never read it, but I somehow know that it isn't relevant because I'm one of these chaps that has opinions on things that I don't know about, like most people.
To be fair, if any of them had said they had read Marx and called themself a Marxist and were still in the Labour Party then I'd tell them to re-read Marx.
Anyone interested in Marx should definitely read Capital in the 21st century by Thomas Picketty for an updated view of the Capitalist model from a Marxist perspective.
Definitely, but not as a substitute for the original. Despite what these idiots in the "Labour" party think, it is still very relevant. It is, however, quite difficult reading...
It’s apparent you haven’t read Piketty’s book, it isn’t a communist-analytic work, it’s a liberal analysis, and Piketty even states this, he is important for communist-analysts to read of course, but by no means is ‘Capital in the 21st Century’ actually in any sense a successor to Marx’s ‘Capital’, indeed Piketty actually critiques Marx in that book and opposes central theories of his such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
@@spartacusw.3506 Still, I think it's a good place to start if you want a modern critique of capitalism. As opposed to a traditional critique which is what Marxism is.
@@HopeIsFleeting No, because 'Capital in the 21st Century' is not really a critique of capitalism and you would know this if you actually took the time to read Piketty, there is nothing anti-capitalist about Piketty's analysis which as I believe I have stated is in-fact little more than a liberal reformist analysis, for example Piketty's concept of 'capital' is totally different from any anti-capitalist's understanding, as for Piketty 'capital' is more of an accounting category (a proxy for wealth) whereas for someone like Marx capital is a self-expanding value, which generates surplus-value (profit), through the exploitation of the workers' labour-power. We could go into lots of other things with regards to Piketty, but I'd like to focus in on one main point throughout his work, which is the moral assertion that inequality is illegitimate. Now, Piketty does actually comment on communism and attempts to rid the earth of capitalism, in his book 'Capital and Ideology', where he talks about how the allegedly utopian goal of establishing total equality in his view and from his research led to rampant inequality (he cites the experience of the Soviet Union, as well as modern oligarchical Russia, etc.), ultimately what Piketty prescribes in light of all of this is not an abolition of capitalism but rather things such as an equal education budget for every citizen, democratisation of the EU, progressive taxation, and basic income guarantees. I think perhaps the most apt response to Piketty was put forward by William Davies whom writing in The Guardian newspaper, posed the following question to Piketty: "if inequality is truly unjustified - then why not do away with it?"
Marx talks about the Labour party (not by name) in communist manifesto under the section labelled bourgeois socialism and repudiated this type of "socialism".
Corbyn is a Socialist not a communist. As hilariously titillating as this comedy spoof of a news report may be, it would have been more apt to ask if the delegates had read biographies of Kier Hardie, Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan. So two minutes of my life were wasted watching this, can I claim compensation?
Marxism, takes a scientific view of society based on how change has happened in the past. Essentially, Marxism sees change as happening in a predictable and patterned way. Labours socialism is more utopian. Both are ways of trying to change society. The main difference is that labours socialism is more humanist then Marx's. Value judgements on which one is more useful or better or whether one informs the other are a bit pointless.
I personally think that the best way to change society would be to dissolve the categories of thought within socialism which have often times been so divisive and are remincsent of the comedy sketch regarding the juedo's peoples front
Geezer at 0:36 - I've never read it, but I somehow know that it isn't relevant because I'm one of these chaps that has opinions on things that I don't know about, like most people.
Or maybe cos labour isn’t socialist anymore?
To be fair, if any of them had said they had read Marx and called themself a Marxist and were still in the Labour Party then I'd tell them to re-read Marx.
whats wrong with reading Karl Marx? Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith is a must read for every citizen surely?
Can anyone work for Newsnight?
Anyone interested in Marx should definitely read Capital in the 21st century by Thomas Picketty for an updated view of the Capitalist model from a Marxist perspective.
+Joey Gee Well said
Definitely, but not as a substitute for the original. Despite what these idiots in the "Labour" party think, it is still very relevant. It is, however, quite difficult reading...
It’s apparent you haven’t read Piketty’s book, it isn’t a communist-analytic work, it’s a liberal analysis, and Piketty even states this, he is important for communist-analysts to read of course, but by no means is ‘Capital in the 21st Century’ actually in any sense a successor to Marx’s ‘Capital’, indeed Piketty actually critiques Marx in that book and opposes central theories of his such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
@@spartacusw.3506 Still, I think it's a good place to start if you want a modern critique of capitalism. As opposed to a traditional critique which is what Marxism is.
@@HopeIsFleeting No, because 'Capital in the 21st Century' is not really a critique of capitalism and you would know this if you actually took the time to read Piketty, there is nothing anti-capitalist about Piketty's analysis which as I believe I have stated is in-fact little more than a liberal reformist analysis, for example Piketty's concept of 'capital' is totally different from any anti-capitalist's understanding, as for Piketty 'capital' is more of an accounting category (a proxy for wealth) whereas for someone like Marx capital is a self-expanding value, which generates surplus-value (profit), through the exploitation of the workers' labour-power. We could go into lots of other things with regards to Piketty, but I'd like to focus in on one main point throughout his work, which is the moral assertion that inequality is illegitimate. Now, Piketty does actually comment on communism and attempts to rid the earth of capitalism, in his book 'Capital and Ideology', where he talks about how the allegedly utopian goal of establishing total equality in his view and from his research led to rampant inequality (he cites the experience of the Soviet Union, as well as modern oligarchical Russia, etc.), ultimately what Piketty prescribes in light of all of this is not an abolition of capitalism but rather things such as an equal education budget for every citizen, democratisation of the EU, progressive taxation, and basic income guarantees. I think perhaps the most apt response to Piketty was put forward by William Davies whom writing in The Guardian newspaper, posed the following question to Piketty: "if inequality is truly unjustified - then why not do away with it?"
So few of them can read at all.
No thay all turn to the back to see who did it.
Isn't "Je suis Marxiste tendance Groucho" a quote by Woody Allen?
No, it was a political slogan used during the 1968 uprisings in France.
Well I’m a Marxist, only if Labour went back to really supporting socialism.
Marx talks about the Labour party (not by name) in communist manifesto under the section labelled bourgeois socialism and repudiated this type of "socialism".
Corbyn is a Socialist not a communist. As hilariously titillating as this comedy spoof of a news report may be, it would have been more apt to ask if the delegates had read biographies of Kier Hardie, Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan. So two minutes of my life were wasted watching this, can I claim compensation?
Marxism, takes a scientific view of society based on how change has happened in the past. Essentially, Marxism sees change as happening in a predictable and patterned way. Labours socialism is more utopian. Both are ways of trying to change society. The main difference is that labours socialism is more humanist then Marx's. Value judgements on which one is more useful or better or whether one informs the other are a bit pointless.
In what world is marxism scientific?
Has anyone at the Labour conference read anything ?.other than the cartoons in the daily star
Does it also require knowing of the "Seize means of Production" meme too? XD
I personally think that the best way to change society would be to dissolve the categories of thought within socialism which have often times been so divisive and are remincsent of the comedy sketch regarding the juedo's peoples front
U must be joking to go into Blackwells at oxford and buy this book, all books sound ,good, exciting, thrilling, then so does Thomas the tank.
The average reader of Karl Marx is ironically not marxist.
Lol we had to go to a capitalist bookstore see god bless Britain capitalism wins again!!!!!
Modern left.