The (Surprising) Core Premise of Marxism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ย. 2024
- Support me with the currency of your choice:
/ burgerkrieg
www.subscribes...
www.paypal.me/...
Get my short story collection, 34 Worlds:
Paperback Version:
www.amazon.com...
Kindle Version:
www.amazon.com...
Narration Channel:
/ @whoisbetty7878
Second Channel:
/ @thekriegerburg3120
Gaming Channel:
/ @beararmsgg
Twitch:
/ burgerkrieg
Tweeter:
/ theburgerkrieg
Subreddit:
/ theburgerkrieg
D-Tube:
d.tube/#!/c/bu...
Minds:
www.minds.com/...
Discord Server:
/ discord
Check out my archive:
archive.org/de...
I would agree with your assessment for the most part. I would clarify it slightly by saying Marx postulated that this exploitation of labor historically lead to conflict and revolution and that it would inevitably lead to conflict and revolution in the future. Marx didn't simply imply that capitalism was exploitative, but that it's level of exploitation invariably leads to conflict between the ruling class and working class.
I see what you mean, but I think maybe for our first lesson we don't need to compress the entire curriculum down into half an hour and stick to the basics
@@TheBurgerkrieg I like the foundation approach in your video.
Does it lead to conflict because its 'invariably explotative"? or because Marxism makes people see capitalism that way?
@@Arkimedies Oh some excellent historical examples of this would be old American "company towns" (though modern versions do also still exist in other countries.)
Company towns were pretty much exactly as described, living quarters, stores, and most other town amenities, under the control of a single company with a large scale operation nearby.
Exploitation was pretty commonplace in such locations, (especially in earlier years when transit was difficult) with workers paid not in dollars, but in company scrip, which could be exchanged at the local stores which were also company owned, or converted out into dollars (sometimes) at rather paltry exchange rates. It shouldn't be surprising to see how having a boss-landlord with their own fiat currency that they control can quickly get out of hand. (Such as adjusting rent to force people to work overtime or lose what little they might have had saved up. And all sorts of little nickle-and-dime procedures such as charging rental fees for tools required for the job, and disallowing tools not bought from the company store.) Effectively leaving people spending nearly exactly all of their pay merely on living expenses, often winding up in debt to the company as well.
It should come as no surprise that resentment, strikes, riots, and unrest of all forms would frequently crop up, even if none of the workers had read a copy of "Das Kapital."
@@Dracowulf7 now take that town and operation and treat it as a single country.
There's no difference between the two. Only the scale at which it happens.
So kind of a moot point tbh...
If co-ops are like pirate ships, does that mean i can talk like one in a socialist society/co-op job without being looked at strangely?
If I remember correctly, the pirate accent is actually a real thing, I think it's based on the Cornish accent or something, but don't quote me on that.
You will still probably laughed at, because its same as viking horns, made up. But maybe theylike that antics and find it funny.
Yes, yes it does.
Good run down of the basics of surplus value and other Marxist ideas. Would actually look forward to future episodes of you simplifying leftist ideas to an audience unfamiliar with leftist terms and ideas.
that is the idea. I made a new playlist that also includes some of my old content called "Leftism for Non-Leftists"
Obviously there was a lot of luck in amazons success but it wasn’t just that bezos got lucky. Man operated at a loss for years and destroyed all his competition in order to monopolize the market itself. It never would’ve gotten to this point without unethical business practices
The only reason a single person would ever need such an outlandish amount of money would be to control others. You can be a multi millionaire and get everything you could ever hope for.
based pirates?
Based pirates!!!
Based Pirates!
Based pirates!!
Based pirates, they also i think had a proto democracy, and sharing prettty fair. And healthcare somewhat. They had getting paid for lost limps and eyes.
@@marocat4749 honestly i think it goes without saying that they were democratic. How can you have collective ownership of the means of production without the "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members"
Thank goodness I'm subbed to this channel. This video explains way better than other channels like three arrows and many more
The closest thing to a simple answer i think i can give is, imagine actual liberalism, you know, the individual has the right to dictate and retain the fruits of their labor. Now just, take that to it's next logical conclusion where you just replace government, with people that own the facility you work at.
Indeed, which is also why the focus on government controlling the people but corporations do not by many liberalists confuses me.
When the founding fathers were talking about government, it was not the liberal democracy government we understand today. No the government they were talking about (and the one they were building, lets be very clear) was one designed for and run entirely by the elite. It was still top down government and what they wanted was an increase in power of capital over birthright rather than an actual equality of individual rights of common people.
But this MOVED who the most elite and powerful to capital owners over gods chosen (though more often the same people) which is who the founding fathers were. Over time we have adjusted their vision and indeed the purpose of government to be more democratic and under the common peoples control and away from its aristocratic and capital control and swung the power balance more towards the people. Many many people fight back on this as though having control over the government is the worst thing in the world but its mostly due to constant propaganda by the elite who want to slowly errode or prevent the increase of the power of the common people. This makes the "government that is large enouigh to provide everything...blah blah" statement far less relevant as when it was originally said they were talking about NOBLES having control over CAPITALISTS and also the NOBLES having control over the populace which reduced the capitalists control over them.
But liberalism in its best form should actually want a highly accountable, highly democratic, highly responsive government that responds to individuals needs as they choose. This is the democracy that was NOT invisioned by the founding fathers. They did not invision as situation where the government was under tight control of the people and respondant to their needs and would not want that because it would reduce the power of capitalists.
So if we then apply the democracy and joint ownership model to bnuisness in the same way we apply (supposedly) that concept to government where the individual has a choice and a say in the way they are employed and gain a fair recompense for their labour and ideas. This would be the ideal that a liberalish should aspire to if they want to profit from the value they provide.
They will complain about tyranny of the masses of course. As though that has been so much worse in democratic nations than tyranny of the individual in dictatorships....
As a person that works at walmart. Yes.
very well put
the apple figure really is shocking though
Wtf I'm a Marxist now?!
hello, based department?
Always has been
Better than a marcyst, aka a class conscious lump on your body
Welcome to the party, time to read Lenin
BASED
Another banger of a video Burger
Amazing explanation
It's surprising for people who never read it. I wonder how surprised people would be reading bundle of sticks economy
To be honest I havne't read it yet. If I get the time to do it I will.
@@Marinanor Good that you want to do it at all :D
0:18 god you're so refreshing, so nice to see another sane human, I think I've seen one other in 10 years.....
There's an episode of Recess about capital. It's a very good episode.
Huh. I guess I'm a Marxist now?
Marxism is essentially the large-scale analysis and critique of capitalism, so technically you don't even have to be a socialist to agree with Karl Marx. Though that'd be pretty weird, because in this case you have to consent with the idea that you oppose the socioeconomic progress.
I would like to point out that most of the companies you talked about in the last part are moreso ways of disttibution. Amazon is packaging and an interface for commerce, and apparently now a video distribution platform, Apple doesn't actually create their own phones and if we include the kids in sweatshops and truckers that number would be alot lower. One of my personal gripes about marxism is that A. It essentially says that money is a representative medium of labor, it represents the labor which went into whatever you did to earn it, so by investing your money into a buisness you are indeed contributing the results of your labor to the buisness in order to help it succeed. B. It doesn't quite work when you take into account a larger economy with large distribution centers across a wide area. The phones are sold to apple, which people pay for the phones, and apple pays the producer less than what they sell the phones for because they need more money than 0 to purchase things needed for life. When it comes to the more modern products of an economy with potentially more than 10 steps in how a product is made and then sold, the real question then becomes at what point is the profit from an associated process not a product of the work of someone else.
yeah, but i'm already god. wtf money gonna do for me?
build churches
Shove up genitalia
In anything resembling a just society, the "boss" or manager would receive a decent amount of money for organizing the enterprise but there is not good reason that he needs to receive more than 5 X as much as the people he is employing. For this reason, it ought to be illegal for any employer or manager to receive more than five times what he provides to the lowest-paid member of his organization. On a society-wide level, we need a maximum income no greater than 5 X the minimum wage.
On a related note, there ought to be a 10% annual wealth tax on total wealth in excess of $1 million. Concentration of power is bad whether it's too much political power in the hands of a party or too much economic power in the hands of the ruling class.
The left is getting better at explaining these things tho, with big channels like Second Thought that explain basic tenants of Marxism and more broadly worker empowerment through short, 10-15 minute TH-cam videos (although he is too soft on Cuba and Vietnam)
the channel Second thought had good content but it went to a downward spiral, now sadly it pushes his biased overgeneralized point of view without a satisfactory conclusion
@David Lightman a TH-camr doesn’t own the means of production LOL; that’s a very fundamental misunderstanding so they probably just ignore your comments
@David Lightman TH-cam owns much of the means of production required for him to be able to get paid. I also don't believe he turns a profit, since I don't believe he employs people for less than their labor value. Read "wage labor and capital" as well as "value, price and profit" if you want to understand how Marx analyzed capitalism, once you've done that you can move on to Capital, his main work.
@David Lightman TH-cam takes a cut, as well as the other platforms, that's my point. He does not own the means of production as you incorrectly claimed.
So financially successful communists, regardless if they became successful by their own hard work and not by labor exploitation are hypocrites and poor communists are just lazy and looking for handouts?
It's almost as if you don't have any substantiation for your critiques and are instead mindlessly calling communists bad.
Communism has nothing to do with charity, it has do with who owns and controls the means of production and therefore the world we all live in. We believe that nobody should hold systemic power over another and Marxist-Leninists (which I am not) believe that we need to seize state power and turn the state into a device of oppression in favor of the working class instead of the capitalist class. This is the difference between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (in the Leninist sense).
@David Lightman How come? In this example we're literally talking about a financially successful communist. Are your feelings really that easily riled up?
I don't know, my reading of the Communist Manifesto that I came away with was a hugely out of touch ideology with a very big emphasis on "The Revolution". Marx and Engles seemed to really like the idea of violent uprising. A bit too much for my liking.
@@teutonicterror0365 Communism. They wanted to achieve Communism. The other thing I took away from the Manifesto was an abject hatred of Socialism and in my further reading the Communists dominate the conversation about the topic to the point that there is no socialism before the comunists infected and subsumed anything that was a threat. They smothered Sindicalism in it's crib and cut off Socialism's face and has been wearing it ever since to hide the stench of famine and genocide.
@@teutonicterror0365 In one of the prefaces to the Manifesto Marx and Engels share a resentment for the more respectable Socialists, and later in the manifesto itself Marx and Engels go to great lengths to distance themselves from socialism and vilify it committing no small amount of petty ad-hominem in an attempt to discredit it.
I have no idea when the subsumation of socialism by the communists started, but I know why. Again in the manifesto, in black and white, M&E state that if there isn't a proper communist revolution going on then you should infiltrate any other revolution you can find and make it communist.
You can say that "Maybe don't start with the Manifesto", but I say that is exactly where any one should start because it reveals communism as the toxic, violent, cult that it is. That is after all, the book for believers, and not meant for the uninitiated. That's the book you find the magic underwear and DC-10 spaceships in.
@@teutonicterror0365 Excuses, jargon , contradictions, apologetics, Ad-Hominem, and lies. Exactly what you expect from a cultists. Also, I would be very careful about bringing up racism, sexism, and antisemitism because Marx is well known to be all of those.
I have read Das Kapital, and while I agree with some of Marx's points, there is still the blood-stained pages of the Manifesto in the back tainting everything. The ideology is there and cant be erased from it. It is fruit from the poisonous tree.
It is important to make the distinction between Socialism and Communism because Communism is the violent, exclusive, fundamentalist form of Socialism that destroyed all others and claimed the title of "The Church". It is the difference between Christianity and The West Borough Baptist Church or Islam and Jihadi Fundamentalists.
@@PenumbranWolf the manifesto was basically a piece of propaganda to dumb down the ideas of marxism and propagate them to the masses. Basically it was sumbed down for peasants, its not a good place too actuslly learn about Marxism.
Why do you say Amazon twice? Did you mean Apple on the last one? (I realize you mention it after the initial numbers) if you did mean Apple, why not edit it with the right cut (because you do a lot of jump cuts anyways)
because he isn't infallible and didn't catch the mistake lol. it was really confusing when i first heard it though.
Can't this hurt small businesses tho I mean who would want to work at your local grocery store when you could make a extra $5,000 at Wal-Mart
Nobody is making an argument here, just talking about the philosophy
@@Superxpninja oh ok
It feels more fufilling to work for a local grocery store, as they tend to build local communities around them, but also giant corrporations wouldnt be as easily run as they are today, and thus local grocery stores would have benefits under a marxists system
@@catboynestormakhno2694 I don't know man I think big business could bite the bullet unlike Jim's gas station
@@gerardwells9515 exactly, so local business is preferred
my bet its gonna be "a research into history through class struggle viewpoint that led to historical materialism through reworking hegel - contradictions led to strife and new modes of production and such" type vibes here -- and now i start the video!~
was it?
@@atomcrusher1236 weeellll not explicitly, but to me it seems burg is familiar with such concepts
ok cool
I think the issue I have with marxism is this. It's a very good system if placed in a vacuum and run by robots. The problem is that it's gotta be run by humans and humans are easily corrupted. I believe that's why it hasn't worked so far, not because of the system itself but because of the people running it corrupting the system to benefit them. I don't think that's something you can just remove either.
Another issue is scale. It's very easy to imagine a town being run like this, or perhaps even a small city state, once you start ballooning to an entire country, or dare say, the world like communism says, things get a ton more complicated and theres so many variables and dependencies to make it work "the real way". Most politicians are callous because they don't understand the breadth of whom they govern. How do you determine how much should be made for an entire country, and who gets what? Resources are limited, capitalism is good at allocating resources, and that it's not centralized means it wont all fall apart since theres more than one means of obtaining said resource, if one should fail. Once you're hitting millions upon millions of stuff to produce and need labor to get it having it all strained through one governing body becomes an absurd thought. Owning means of production doesn't mean anything if you can't produce what you need for the people who need it. Making smaller bodies to alleviate this would just become pedantics and equivalent to corporations in a capitalist system anyway.
@@ORLY911 yeah that's another good point. I just think that Marxism is just a great sounding poorly thought through idea. If it could work the way it's described then it would be great but it just has to many obstacles in place of it working as described.
I mean, if you were an elected representative of the workers under you, wouldn't you be willing to listen to their demands from you, purely out of self preservation, since you get kicked out of your position in the next election if you don't do so? Compared to capitalism where bosses just inherently have more power than workers and workers have no leverage?
@@ORLY911 I mean, there's very few people out there who still advocate for a centrally planned economy. First, the system that the video is describing is market socialist. Second, even people who prefer a planned economy tend to prefer decentralized models, and these types of models had been proposed (but not implemented since everyone followed the Soviet centralized model due to their outsized influence) since the beginnings of the socialist movement.
Democracies work much better when decentralized in general, and this would be true of democratic economies as well.
Pirate ships being the only succesful implementation of anarchism is a great metaphor
Well yeah. Create no value of your own and steal what someone else's slaves did. But you're totally not dependent on the slave system to live...
Snark coming from ignorance. There's MAREZ, and the revolutionary territories in Spain and a few others.
you didnt hear the Mondragon example?
Just be a chad and when the multinational corporation says theyll ruin you instead just be better than them and make them bleed capital while charging a fair price and letting them get frustrated and more and more erratic leading to staff turnover and constant issues with the public
That was great!
wait … "with interest" ?! how does that work with marxism?? how does any 'knowledge economy' occupation jibe with marxism? how do you measure the value of something intangible?
Based in the contribution it promotes and affect society - something with little effect has little value, something with great effect has greater value.
@@Jamhael1 define "greater", define "effect", define "to whom", define "value", define who judges.
@@jaewok5G you are pretending to be ignorant, don't you?
@@Jamhael1 i wouldn't accuse you of pretending. you offer a rubric for evaluating value but all the words are nebulous and subjective which makes it useless for any practical value except exerting capricious control. collectivisms are all parasitic and coercive at the point of a rifle.
Honestly? Yeah, great video, great simple way of explaining wage theft and that jazz. I get the whole "leftists are bad at explaining this" and it happens to me too as a leftist. All I can say in my defense is that knowing this shit and being able to explain it in a way people will understand are two different things, the latter being a skill in of itself. And also, for me personally, if I'm put on the spot and have to explain all this, I get a mental block because the information jams inside the pipe.
Is this business model compatible with cooperative game theory?
A tragic day when a youtuber you liked comes out as a Marxist. It's been a good run. Time to unsubscribe.
And nobody cared
But what is surprising about this? This is part of most (higher) german school education.
@@teutonicterror0365 Maybe my family just got lucky with the schools? Or it's a unique thing to Lower Saxony...
I'll make the same argument I made on your coops video. Let these ideas compete in the free market and the best one will inevitably win. If, as a worker, I see that the guys who work at the coop are being paid better, have better hours, etc. then I'll join one. Otherwise, I'll join the traditional "exploitative" company. If your ideas are better then they'll win.
Also, say what you want about Jeff Bezos being an asshole, he did not get lucky. He built Amazon from the ground up, which takes a huge amount of work. I can say this because I'm also trying to start a company; it's not easy, especially if you have to maintain a day job at the same time.
Jeff Bezos was born and raised in a family of career politicians, amd he started Amazon by getting a "loan" of 300 thousand dollars FROM HIS DAD.
Tell me how many people that you know is capable of doing this?
You break a rock, and sell the gravel. You contribute 20 currency to the company. Your boss directs you to break different rocks. Now you break a rock and sell the coal for 50 currency. Did your labour earn 50? Or did your labour earn 20 and your boss's knowledge earn 30?
Your labour earned 50, if the boss wants to earn something then he needs to do it.
@@justcallmenoah5743 he did do something. He directed you to the valuable rocks. There is value in that.
@@bradleypalmer9953 Knowledge is a societal process, not an individual one. An individual cannot survive, let alone learn a language, mathematics or develop advanced methods to increase productivity on their own. There is zero value in letting knowledge itself have barriers and prices, it slows down innovation compared to sharing it freely.
Now with that said, any socialist transition that still maintains wage labor for any amount of time should pay those who are the most knowledgeable more than those who aren't, in order to incentivize learning more than you need to and helping to spread that knowledge. The difference is that increased wage should be determined democratically, not by arbitrary private ownership over means of production.
@@youtuber7186 This is a fantastic response, thank you. While I agree that knowledge is a societal process, it is driven by individuals. If I learn advanced mathematics for the fun of it, a higher wage may not be enough to convince me to pass on that knowledge. On the flip side, a genius could break rocks like everyone else because they don't want to stand out, thus losing a valuable resource in the attainment of new knowledge.
And then there's the potential for the majority to decide that practical matters are more valid than intellectual ones. How would society improve its knowledge base when people are disincentivised from learning?
By allowing people to leverage their knowledge for their own advantage, you appeal to the very human trait of selfishness.
In that example the boss was another worker (perhaps briefly) not a capitalist. He performed a bit of labor by sharing his expertise.
Jeff bezos does some amount of work that has value. Each of his workers does too. Jeff gets paid exponentially more than his labor’s value. His workers get paid less than the labor value they are adding to the company. The sum total of how much all of his workers are getting ripped off equals the sum total jeff is getting overpaid.
You got any statistic to back up that "Today most company owners come from old money" claim?
Entrepreneurial Success and Occupational Inheritance among Proprietors by
Bernard F. Lentz and David N. Laband states in the abstract that "roughly 50% of self-employed proprietors are second-generation proprietors". So not most but enough. Also even if they didn't it was said later in the video that having a successful company has very little to do with skill and more to do with chance. I recently discovered how easy it is to back up claims with google scholar so I'm just going all out in TH-cam comment sections, sorry lol.
burgersayingbased.mp4
Sounds like my ideas about UBI, without actually understanding half of this. I theorized that such a system would best be funded by the upper echelons of taxes, if those bastards would actually pay their taxes like the rest of us, reinvesting that wealth into the common folk to increase their purchase power, which in turn stimulates the economy, and maybe in theory, gain more in the long run. It would create a cycle of wealth that in my opinion is sustainable as long as the powerful actually play nice, which is unlikely.
(Me, grew up in the US with an accountant/financial advisor for a father): Maybe I am a Marxist... Dad's gonna kill me if he knew...
After 4 minutes in, I'm curious if you're going down the route of "Marxism assumes everyone is equally qualified in determining which labor is valuable". Or something.
honestly I've been looking for critiques of Marxism and this is a really good one. Most of what i found are idealogues saying "vuvuseula iphone 999 trillion dead". i think the foil to this idea is market economics, since in a company with workers that can't determine which labor is valuable the valuable laborers would move jobs, so the companies that prevail would be ones with educated workers that recognize what they put in and can make decisions with less bias.
Marx raises several good points and observations of his world. But Marx's other points and observation border on sociopathic reasoning about the nature of human being, a massive underlying failure of his philosophical doctrine is; he forgets humans are beings with desires, dreams and wants. People are not drones, they need a reason to keep living beyond just, eat, defecate and work another day.
because statements like "Each according to his ability, Each according to his needs" permit some pretty wild and horrendous stuff, is a socialist society going to allow/force it's members access to reproductive partners? force it's members to work only one speciality the rest of their lives until the society discards them? these questions are never answered by Marx.
This accompanied by paradoxical statements about "those that wish to disarm the populous must be frustrated" which runs counter to number of other statements he's made because they require the populous to be disarmed in order to even make them enforceable.
> People are not drones, they need a reason to keep living beyond just, eat, defecate and work another day.
But Marx doesn't disagree? Like, I don't think you're as familiar with his writing as you think. Part of his critique of capitalism is that the way work is structured alienates workers from their work and the products of that work, since they're both under the direction of someone else, someone who has power over them and isn't really beholden to them. And the fact that he focuses on politcal-economic structures doesn't mean he thinks that there's nothing else to human existence, y'know.
>because statements like "Each according to his ability, Each according to his needs" permit some pretty wild and horrendous stuff, is a socialist society going to allow/force it's members access to reproductive partners?
Like this just seems silly. I don't know how you could interpret that statement in that way. Here's some explanation right from Wikipedia: Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable-a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want".[19] Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents.
>force it's members to work only one speciality the rest of their lives until the society discards them? these questions are never answered by Marx.
For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
Like, you can criticize whether or not these utopian ideals can be achieved in reality (I, for one, don't think they can be) but it's clear you're twisting Marx's words or outright ignoring things he's said.
Specialisation is a requirement not an optional condition, even the most egalitarian of societies understood that. Marx, a man who never worked an honest day in his life, has a wife and 12 children off the back of his friend Engel's savings. Marx maybe right, but he sure is a hypocrite.
@@MBunn-uf1we I don't really care if he personally was a good person or lived by his values, just whether or not those values are coherently justified, which, for the most part I think they are.
"bezos got lucky" is about the most ridiculous conclusion I've heard.
So you are pro Marxism?
I like how all of this sounds great when you remove the actual economics. I think these ideas work great in pizza shops less well in multi national retail conglomerates.
There's a reason why "the average joe" does not and will not belong to a co-operative nor have the ambition to start "their" own business. The other angle is, quite frankly its unbelievably risky to do so. Most governments are hostile and parasitical to business owners, plus they make it hard to hire people as well - they punish you for hiring, they punish you for being self employed, they punish you for making a profit. They come at you from above, below and behind. Most of this talk is fantasy
you do realize the reason its so hard to start a coop is because of policy put in place to ensure aristocrats continue profiting, right?
So are you officially class conscious now? Also, making shareholders walk the plank off the top of skyscrapers sounds based.
I'm fine with buyouts tbh
@@TheBurgerkrieg So what's your stance on revolution vs reform? Do you think a revolution can be bloodless? You should make a video on that some day, if it isn't too contentious a topic. Obviously executing businessmen is a bit of a meme take, but I can't imagine a transition of power and assets without some violence, personally. If you frame it in a certain way, it really is just self defence.
Kinda wondering of leftist opinions on this - so what if if Bezos got incredibly lucky? I mean, good for him. Everyone gets lucky at some particular thing at some point in their life. What's the harm in that?
The harm is millions of workers being exploited... did you watch the video?
@@egarulastinn7438 why not just improve the system to decrease the harm instead of remaking the entire thing?
@@uja11 how do you improve - without remaking - the fact that people can get unlimited wealth from no work, but simply by owning stuff? And why would you not want to remake the entire thing, when it's unfair, cruel, and lead us to the climate catastrophe?
@@egarulastinn7438 "from no work" if that were possible, everyone could do it. What they did work for was acquiring the knowledge and expertise to make passive income possible. A computer network technician technically can spend an entire day sitting on his ass and being paid for it but that's because he worked hard to become smart and efficient enough to make it possible for him to construct and organize a network efficient enough so that it doesn't require constant maintanance.
"And why would you not want to remake the entire thing, when it's unfair, cruel,"
Because when the alternative has been tried numerous times, it always ended up with something even more cruel that just collapsed anyway.
@@uja11 no, not everyone could do it. You need a huge amount of initial capital to be able to get to that point, and also luck, which you even mentioned in the first place. Once again, have you actually watched the whole video?
More cruel? A person starving on a street, a child dying from toxic fumes in a mine, a girl with no hopes for the future in the fast-fashion factory in bangladesh - I think they would disagree. And it's this system that's put us on a path to climate disaster, the path we're likely too far on to go back from.
And multiple systems have been tried, and have stayed succesful and sustainable for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, most of them have been transformed by the colonizers with the help of such horrible violence that any "failed communist state" pales in comparison.
people still think Marx's version of the labour theory of value is accurate!?...
Value is a social construct, if peopple can believe in th invisible hand or trickle down, thats what youdonr believe, that th social construct of value can not ajust given state support to that healthy standard.
Egoism > Marxism
Based
Based and Stirner-pilled
When you see how much these biggies pay taxes... That's how much they contribute to society.
Aka practically nothing.
In marxist socialism workers aren't actually payed the whole amount that they produce, because then there would be nothing left to mantain machinery and other necessary inftrastructure. So the state takes the excess value instead of an employer and redestributes it as it sees fit, to build tanks or more machinery, for example.
That is not correct, as that is accounted for as running costs of the factory/business, the excess is given to the workers, you don't have a ruling class taking the lions share of production for themselves.
might wanna actually watch the video mate
@David Lightman This is a worker co-op what I'm suggesting, worker co-ops exist right now. It can and is implementable currently.
@@TheBurgerkrieg I did. What you are describing in the end is mutualism, not marxism. Factory workers which own the factory are still capitalists, because they can extract surplus value from workers at other factories. This just moves exploitation from a level of an individual to a level of companies. In marxism, socialism is only possible when all the workers in the whole world owned all production in a single cooperative. That's why Stalin's idea about socialism in a single country was so controvercial.
@David Lightman okay boomer.
"I've always been lucky and am also highly skilled and financially stable. Why the fuck are you guys complaining? The world is a just place."
2 out of the 4 worlds richest people are self made...
self made implies they did it themselves. They had no employees or starting capital?
@@janfungusamon4926 Who would you say meets that definition? At what point of wealth earned without employees or starting capital is enough you would say they qualify? And what system do you think would provide the space for that possibility?
Lebron James, made it with labor I guess lol.
Where I live 100grand is the down payment on a dilapidated one-room home in the hood. Bozo started with that, to do what he has done with a small loan and the hard work of mistreated & underpaid employees qualify in the real world, whether we agree with the system or not...
@@2nuts4cars what definition. I said that he did employ people and that that means he owes them what they earned for the company. The only exception is when your paycheck goes into company capital, which should be decided on by the workees in said company. I'd say anyone who earns money without doing a job should be out of a job. Idc how much they made its the principle that paying people their input + profit encourages better output, if we pay people to manipulate then we get inequality, power imbalance, poverty, and the rest of the awful shit we currently have. Market socialism provides the space for a system where workers earn what they created.
@@janfungusamon4926 lol, ok...
Higher velocity of money is also called inflation btw
That's higher volume of money, fam
No it's not.
Velocity of money is messuring how much time is between changing hands (aka, buying goods or services).
Inflation is messuring the price incease of goods and services in the total money supply in the system.
You can have a system with a ton of money being poured in with no inflation BECAUSE the velocity is low; an example would be the US government in 2020 who poured more money into the economy than the inflation we saw.
High velocity low inflation situation would be times of economic prosperity and people having confidence in the market, Think pre-2008.
Low velocity high inflation would be times where the populous has lost faith in the system and the government continues to try and outprint the problem. Think Zimbabwe where it got so bad that if taxes were 1 day late it would be worthless to the government and abandoned.
Give a billionaire a million dollars and it will sit in their account, low velocity/low inflation.
Give 1000 people a 1000 dollars and it will zip through an economy with little over all effect, high velocity low inflation.
Give a (not so responsible) government a printing press with incentive to keeping tax low, high velocity high inflation.
Low velocity - high inflation is a hard example. To get a better understanding imagine a pool of water. Inflation is a ratio of how much new water is going into an economy compared to how much is there already. Velocity is messuring how fast water is coming in-and-out/moving in the pool.
An ok example of low velocity high inflation is when Averagers was filming in Scotland, whenever the crew needed to by something the locals increased the price because of perception that the crew were able to afford it. A bag of concrete could triple in prices easily. So the price went up but the goods exchanged were nothing special. The crew weren't going to buy more than what was needed so the velocity couldn't really be felt outside of those who interacted with the crew.
Hope that cleared it up!
@@OneEyeShadow No. One way for inflation is the Volume of money to increase, another is for Velocity to increase. V*M= const
@@DrKosmos It doesn't work like that. Economy doesn't care how many dollars there are, all prices reflect is supply and demand, higher velocity or more money in circulation means more demand and inflation. In 2008-2013 government printed a lot of money, but it gave this money to banks, where it sits without effect. In 2020 l, government printed even more money, but gave a very small part of it to regular people and small businesses, amount of money in circulation increased, and we have inflation. Another type of inflation in when velocity increases without printing money, for example in US in 1970s or in Britain at the same time.
4:03 and now you don't have a business because you can't make money.
An argument can be made that the margin should at least be skewed in the favor of the worker if profit must still be generated.
Though Marx usually just goes on to argue regarding creating a wholly currency-less society altogether. Make of that what you will.
Currently the US has wealth inequality higher than the french revolution, so I get the sneaking suspicion a lot of Americans are being underpaid.
might wanna watch the video fam
Or bacaue no business, reorganize them altogether, i know thats not ho it work, but in that case, reorganize as coops.
He was realistic enough to have socialism as transition periode thou till it gets there. He was for socialism.
Lol. This shows how chad Apple are, my god
Incorrect.
That is what it is. Its why the constant starvation happens everywhere its tried.
Just like capitalism. You know, like right now, in the most capitalist country on earth. People are starving, homeless, and dying of covid at a horrific rate.
@@justcallmenoah5743 Where? Coz dictatorship is causing deaths from the coof, see new york and cuomo. Australia has under a thousand total cases let alone deaths.
Genuinely, where are you talking about?
@@TherealTenmanI Everywhere the whole planet bucko, 9 Million people die annually of Hunger and Hunger related disease, 1 in 9 of the global population are starving right now, and as far as I remember everywhere right now is some flavour of capitalist.
@@computermaster50 yup if not capitalist then feudal in some newer agey form.
You mean fascism? Because there's never on the face of this planet been Marxist economy 100% implemented. Fascists however are the reigning ideology where state and corporations ie rich and powerful people work together to suppress and extract wealth, labor from everyday humans.