วีดีโอ

@@ericduran4841 www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/index.htm

Good read.

What reading? It's ai.

@@m.streicher8286 And?

@@m.streicher8286u R

@@m.streicher8286 Think on it a little more and you'll get the joke

Can you clarify your argument?

@@memetkara2117 I can't see how you can have an oxymoronic phrase of state capitalism. With capitalism dealing with the private and a state being a public, so essentially saying public private control If a private joins a large group of people (a public, state, society, etc) they become part of a public and are not private anymore

@@vandalcreed This is not a semantic issue. When it says "state monopoly capitalism" it means that the state is at the service of the monopolies. Nothing more.

@@vandalcreed if you listen to the audio or google the phrase "state-monopoly capitalism" nowhere you will see any sentence that talks about "a private company joining the state". State monopoly capitalism is the subjugation of the state by the monopolies. Somehow you talk about a fusion of state and private sector. Nobody says that. Not even the expression "state monopoly capitalism" implies that.

This is not google translation. You can search and see the English translation.

@@memetkara2117 I think you should update your channel's about section as it describes one specific russian book that has been run through google translate. I'm still curious as to why you upload these videos with the books read through text to speech?

@@Tracequaza when I update about section TH-cam issues warnings about copyright problems. Even with Soviet books! That's crazy. With respect to your question, well, it's interesting to google translate Soviet books and process them in text to speech. Something unthinkable when these books were written.

you have to be 13 to have a youtube account.

No. It's another way of robbery. In any case, in capitalism you'll get robbed either by the state-owned or by private sector.

@@memetkara2117 are u anarchist?

@@anarchrevolution No. A communist.

damn that's a big statement but ok

Is this commentary the result of a long investigation or is it just the repetition of some anti-communist cliches? It looks like the latter. Do you know for example anything about the 20th Congress of CPUS, Khruschev revisionism? Obviously not! Well then, no investigation, no right to speak. In 1956, capitalism was restored in the USSR. Bureaucratization and its victory was culminated in capitalism, not socialism or communism.

Contrary to belief with Soviets still did capitalism. State capitalism vs private capitalism. It was a socialist State NOT communist. The goal was always to achieve communism through socialism.

@@memetkara2117 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 vat

@@memetkara2117 I lived in communist country. You are wrong, and you are liar.

You mean……..everywhere.

Have you ever heard about the bailouts of banks by the governments? Or the operations of the Central Banks? We are talking about trillions of dollars. How can you say that they do not regulate the economy? And what "free market" are you talking about in a world of giant monopolies? Try to produce cars and compete and see what happens :)

⁠​⁠​⁠@@memetkara2117There is no way of knowing whether a business is a monopoly or not. A monopoly has many different definitions one of which is that they lower the quantity produced and raise prices. This definition however is too vague and a business whether monopolistic or not will lower their quantity produced depending on consumer demand. If there is a shift in demand from one industry to the next the former will lower quantity produced and free up labour for the next industry. Furthermore the theory ignores the elasticity of demand of consumers, if demand is elastic any shift in price will lower revenue for firms as consumers will shift their purchasing elsewhere. If the demand is inelastic then the opposite would take place where consumers will keep purchasing the good at a higher price. The tendency for the economy is that most goods will become elastic in time that is as the economy develops more and more different goods they lose their homogeneity and become more heterogeneous as company’s not just the monopoly in a certain industry compete for the consumers dollar. I can go on and on.

By this logic capitalism has never existed. Free market for who exactly?

@@dribbler456pls8 come on, focus on the facts and forget about the stupid textbooks prepared by "economists" who are financed by the rich. Of course you can define monopoly. Numbers speak for themselves. Take a look at how many companies there are in the US, in UK, in Germany, in Japan, in Russia, in China and even in countries like Turkey, Poland, Mexico and Indonesia. There are millions of companies in each of them. And yet there are only an handful of companies that dominate most of the sectors, especially those that require high investment. Look at the retail sector, at the oil sector, at metallurgy, at vehicle production. Look at banking! They are all highly concentrated. So don't try to divert this debate to a scholastical question about "the exact definition of a monopoly". This is like asking "exactly how many hairs must a person have in order that we can consider him a bald person?" The reality is our there for those who dare to look at it. They use their monopoly positions to obtain high profits and they dictate the prices. Of course, there's a limit to this and this limit is the purchasing power of the masses. Still, they are able to sell at prices at exorbitant prices and whatever you buy, a good percent of your money goes to these guys' pockets. There's no "flexibility" about this.

@@memetkara2117 The theory of monopoly I’ve discussed has nothing to do with mainstream economic theory and mainly finds its origin from Austrian Economic theory. A school of thought widely ignored by the mainstream and for a good reason. For example in Austrian economics money is treated as dead capital and has no bearing on interest rates with the only money and its increase in stock affecting its purchasing power. In mainstream economic theory however it’s treated as such with Keynesian liquidity preference theory taking major focus. For the banking sector Austrian economics is fully aware that it is nothing but a big scam. With the fractional reserve system most banks simply are incapable of meeting the deposit for most of its clients and as such a bank runs are always possible furthermore mainstream economics refuse to separate the savings from the loans market leading to more credence to the fractional reserve system. One of the leading discussions in Austrian economics is its discussion of business cycles and the state manipulating interest rates which affects and sends incorrect signals on investment and consumption throughout the economy. Going back to your discussion of prices, a business setting a price is not the final price on the market. What do I mean by this? How a business earns revenue is by setting a price and waiting until a buyer comes to purchase the good. When the buyer arrives he checks whether the price aligns with his value scale that is whether the satisfaction of purchasing the unit of good is greater than his unit of money spent on the purchase of it. If yes then he will buy it if no then he won’t buy it. The final price that is the purchasing of the good from the business by the consumer determines the companies revenue aka whether it’s made a profit or not. So the price set by sellers or business is simply a means of furnishing and sending information to potential buyers/consumers if he increases or decreases the price is neither determining of whether he will make a profit or not. Furthermore if a small farmer decides to increase his price for his crops and finds no buyers it would be no different if Ford raised the price of his cars and saw his profits fall. All have to play the same game whether the demand schedules are different or not is simply a sign of consumer preference for one good over another. In the end your the one who has made grave mistake with his definition. A monopoly refers to one seller so if there are handful of sellers then that in no way is a monopoly for example in metallurgy (in the US) the steel industry has many key manufacturers that being Nucor Corporation, United States steel corporation, AcelorMittal USA and the Cleveland Cliffs inc and I can just go on and on all the while ignoring the more smaller steel industries that exist and even if they are a monopoly like ALCOA they still have to contend with as a stated in my previous comment the ever growing array of goods developing within a economy that all compete for the consumers dollar. A perfect example was during the 70s and 40s when antitrust lawsuits were dropped on ALCOA, congress when asked why they didn’t raise prices ALOCOA replied that they would lose money. Why? Because if they raised prices it meant that other producers would substitute aluminum in production so instead of aluminum pots then they would make steel pots etc. You state that their is no flexibility but it’s very clear that their is tons of flexibility within a capitalist society. If a company earns high profits its simply a sign that it is meeting consumer demand and wouldn’t you say that it is a good thing as goods are being produced and consumers find that they meet their needs. If a firm has a large amount capital (that is machinery, labour etc) all of this must of come about from time and investment spent on the project no one would complain if a small farmer reaped the rewards of his harvest so why not the capitalist.

Any concrete criticism apart from clichés?

😂

@@memetkara2117 It's a counterfactual narrative. That's not a cliche. Time to grow up.

@@secondchannel1523 what exactly in the video is counterfactual or false?

@@secondchannel1523 go on we're all waiting for you to enlighten us

damn... this is the exact thing that collapsed USSR

A fellow fan of James Burnham?

istmat.org/node/37206