Was Karl Marx right?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 พ.ค. 2018
- Karl Marx remains surprisingly relevant 200 years after his birth. He rightly predicted some of the pitfalls of capitalism, but his solution was far worse than the disease.
Click here to subscribe to The Economist on TH-cam: econ.st/2FEY1tD
Daily Watch: mind-stretching short films throughout the working week.
For more from Economist Films visit: econ.st/2FE3sJB
Check out The Economist’s full video catalogue: econ.st/20IehQk
Like The Economist on Facebook: econ.st/2FDEbiA
Follow The Economist on Twitter: econ.st/2FHCzVe
Follow us on Instagram: econ.st/2FFx4Gi
Follow us on Medium: econ.st/2FEbDWi
No, he was left.
No. He was right.
Marx once (reportedly) said that, " ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).
🤓😉😜😜
gg
You beat me by 4 months
Ba dum tiss. :)
Ha
The real question is why would anyone think the economist would do a fair review of Marx.
I've known that before I click on the video
YES THANK YOU
Marx is is a destructive spirit whose heart was filled with hatred rather than love for mankind. Giuseppe Mazzina.
The idea of Marx as a Rothschild shill…was raised as a concern by his contemporary rival in the First International, Mikhail Bakunin in 1869, who was not even aware of the fact that Marx and Rothschild were cousins. Bakunin wrote presciently:
“This world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other. This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralization of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found. “
-Mikhail Bakunin, Profession de foi d’un démocrate socialiste russe précédé d’une étude sur les juifs allemands, 1869.
Funny how socialists hate capitalism, yet all of them would be dead by the age of 30 without it
Can't wait for The Economist to make a review on my work
- Marx
😂😂😂
haha. He must be happy now in his grave.
@@Adnanabd14 yup
Marx never said the wealth should be equally distributed, he said workers should keep the surplus value of their work.
They do, it's called wages ;)
@@UsammityduzntafraidofanythinWages are taxed.
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin if wages were the full value produced by work, there wouldn't be profit for owners.
@@erlikquadros5873if you are so bothered about that go and start your own business then
@@martynholden3478if u read Marx you would know that business requires exploitation, it is inherent, Marxist don’t argue I don’t get enough bcuz of my wage, we argue I don’t get enough because of exploitation, the chase for profit under capitalism directly attacks my wage and any other benefits would/could receive, and that if I start a firm (excluding the capital needed to start one or the future capital gain/loss) I will have to exploit a worker somewhere, the chase for profit directly requires the capitalist class to underpay and overwork workers
“He who doesn’t read the newspaper is uninformed. He who reads the the newspaper is misinformed “-Mark Twain
City Wok lol
Wait, didnt he write for multiple newspapers?
What the fuck am I supposed to do then?
@@fv8399 , you have to read, but you also have to be critical about it and not only absorb it as a sponge.
Gilberto Borello Think about all the reports lately about China
"The Economist, a journal that speaks for the British millionaires."
-Vladimir Lenin
Wow I didn't realize The Economist was that old!... or British
@Schlomo rabbi Goldberg Multiculturalstein idk, have you checked on that "Thousand Year Reich" recently?
Schlomo rabbi Goldberg Multiculturalstein your profile pic uses nazi imagery, so if you don’t want to be seen as a Nazi then don’t use their imagery
Stalin was a revisionist but Lenin was pretty cool
Now these British millionaires turnt billionaires
Glad so many people are voicing their opposition to this video
Glad to see so many people who don't understand economics.
Smoggapopoppggy dfreak sasatsterackss!!@@DarthVaderTheSithLord
when you put it in the way saying communism slaughtered millions, you should remind that capitalism also slaughtered millions.
There were no Communist party in the World, they are so called communist party not a scientific party without preceptor and leader.
Billions actually
How?
Under the Communist regimes of the USSR and China and other Communist puppet governments, hundreds of millions of people died under Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Deng Xaioping, Xi Jingping, and several others.
When? How? Why? Are you dead?
"We live in an economy."
Marxists rise up
Cringe
@rainbowsixs mr klean magic eraser irrelevant
"We live in our economy"
We live in an economy
Proletariat text
“Oh shit was the deadline for the Marx video today?” -Economist writer
Karl Marx once said, "the economist is a newspaper written by British billionaires for British millionaires"
@@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxya9604 lol
@@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxya9604
It seems a bit more balanced than that. They at least addressed the failures of capitalism mentioned wealth inequality amoung them.
@@Competitive_Antagonist well, he wrote that probably 160 years ago, minor changes might happend
🤣🤣🤣
" The newspaper and media are like a piano key board, you can play anything on it and people will listen to it." --Joseph Goebbels.
During the American Civil War, the Economist magazine/paper supported the South (fighting to keep slaves) while Marx supported the Union…
The Economist was still anti slavery.
@@tinytank6642 How are they anti slavery when they support something with the single point of being pro slavery? That's like saying Henry Ford still liked Jews despite supporting the Nazis for killing Jews.
Were you high or something? (Not judging, just curious)
yes. I am gonna trust "the economist" to tell me about marx in 3 minutes instead of reading his works
Buying a view that when add in ambition from human, turn it to dust and not worth mentioning. How are you so delusional?
Wendy Marx also read studies on him. Tho this video focuses more on what his teachings have led to, rather than the man himself or his beliefs.
Karl Marx was third cousin of Nathan Rothschild you know thew same Rothschild's who own the economist, bankers love communism (ie a complete monopoly over everything) its why they created it to wipe out the middle class and make all non chosen people peasants !
You can read his success of economics failure everywhere starting from soviet to north korea to Venezuela
@DrumDip wanna live in Venezuela where there economy mostly depends on oil which is public owned and it currency have lower value than toiler papers
maybe you could disagree with Marx's proposed solution to capitalism, but you can hardly dispute his critiques.
that is the point . you can hardly dispute his critiques. from the 18th century to modern times his ideas on capital and labor have held true. Other economic theories have faced the tests and challenges and modifications but not Marx's economics. Unfortunately Marx's economic principles are perceived or were projected to be aligned or rather only aligned to the communist system of politics and governance, in particular Soviet Union. They are actually as relevant in all types of economies. And hence the Western countries, especially the USA and their economists and policy makers either criticized him or ignored him.
@bearjew Marriage being a part of capitalism? Yes if you just state that he was for abolishing the idea of marriage and family it does sound a bit irrational, but not because it actually is, just because you probably never thought about it in an objective way. He was living in the 19th century, and no matter what you think of this, you firstly have to agree that his ideas were way ahead of his time. He argued that by getting married, certain roles were given to the man and the woman which will lead to further inequality - and exactly what he said inspired Clara Zetkin in the nearer future. Also, he did predict the future in a way that marriages will often happen because of financial or religious reasons, which is true as well. Also, a man born in the 1800s understanding the basic human nature of poligamous relationships and sexual needs is a huge thing, no matter what your personal opinion is on it. And don't you think that it is a bit problematic that children are born into families they do not choose, which shape them up for their whole life and they can't really do anything smart about it? Don't take ideas of people born 200 years before you literally, try to understand the true value of them.
@bearjew did you fail to realise that most of your 'arguments' here were only insulting other people directly without any reason other than "you left wing people are so retarded and stupid and comunism kills!" It's fine if you have an opposing view but then learn how to have a civil discussion and educate yourself on all sides from neutral sources
@bearjew and btw attacking people on the internet for spelling is pretty immature since you don't know if the person you're talking to is a native speaker of the language you're speaking on
@bearjew you appear to be the one that never actually read marx, dont accuse him of that lol.
Capitalist societies don’t Redistribute wealth through taxes. We take tax money and hand it to the people who need it the least in America.
Yep. The government hands it to the richest people. The politicians have gotta thank them for their campaign contributions in some way.
So they redistribute wealth. . . From the poor to the rich, as intended.
Corporate welfare. They also privatize the gains and socialize the losses for the to big to fail banks and corporations.
@@rielbertrand8255 Top of the hour to ya
"He was completely right, but he's wrong because 2 superpowers got corrupt for relying too much on old power structures (something he literally warns about)"
-the Economist
The video also forgets to mention that the rest of the world didn't allow the USSR to exist without constant trade sanctions and global proxy wars. Thus, the USSR had to focus disproportionately on military buildup. The USSR was the second most powerful country on earth. It was also #2 in scientific literature.
@@krampusx9784what was the sacrifice tho and don’t act like they didn’t pull that sneaky move after ww2 with Germany
Yes, there were only two such states) Let's forget all the communist dictator regimes and pretend, that there are NO examples of trying to build communism irl😊
@@user-cr1hv8gf8d You're saying that as if there weren't many attempts to build democracy in general. Most of which also ending in totalitarian uprisings. The difference between those two, however, being the USSR suffered under constant propaganda and LITERAL THREATS TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE WORLD IF THEY CONTINUED TO EXIST. Russias transition into Capitalism, along with the other former Soviet countries lead to many becoming even more destitute on a daily basis than the worst times of the USSR. Russia and Ukraine became oligarchies who hated each other, Georgia and Belarus became puppets, Poland is currently having a backside in LGBTQ+ rights and is currently using its support for Ukraine to whitewash that fact and the different North Asian countries that were part of the USSR before are completely broke. Along with the African countries constantly becoming banana republics since their switch. What a great economic system you had there. The Soviet block fell in 70 years. The Capitalist block collapsed into imperialism in 7
@@thefbiman2116 🤡🤡🤡Lol didn´t reed
Wow The Economist is talking about Karl Marx I'm sure it's gonna be an objective analysis of socialism
Just like Marx' analysis of capitalism was entirely objective...
@@jamesspackman9819 Yes it is
@@jamesspackman9819 I mean I’d say it was. Idk how much Marx you’ve read or if you even have read him but I’d say it was pretty objective
@@quinnnosbod3673 Marx' "analysis" of capitalism wasn't even close to be objective.
@@TyyylerDurden have you read it?
Seems like some high school student did some research on Karl Marx
She is correct but he was left
Usual Indian superiority behavior.
High schoolers these days are too afraid to get jobs so they want Marx's dreams to become a reality
@@tarhit9 Mmkay but yeah that just proves my point
@@dancingvalkyrie or maybe they just haven’t been fed as much amerikkkan propaganda as we have :/
Marx definitely did NOT say he thought wealth *should* be divided up *equally.* I don't think he just said take the wealth and divide it by the population. I think what he was saying is the means of production would be owned collectively and everyone would get what they needed. Now of course in a highly technological society a lot more than basic needs would be possible, but certainly nobody would go without. I sometimes think the Welfare State is well on its way toward that, where nobody would ever fall below a certain level while humanity reached great heights. The bigger problem might be how collective ownership achieves this in mass technological society, so to this point we have markets and taxes and worker protections.
today's western welfare states are built upon the exploitation of the Global South, it's imperialism 101, my friend. They export capital, and use cheap consumer goods to pay for the workers in their own country.
I’ve not even watched this yet but I am absolutely certain that this question that continues to be asked around the world for over a century is capable of being fairly explained and addressed in just over three minutes of a TH-cam video
I mean most people around the world already know the answer given how badly his ideas have failed. It’s just really people that want to live in a fantasy world where these outdated views work that still ask the question
@@zachary7897 his ideas has never been put into practice. A stateless society never existed.
@@noisyboy7443Yes and why do you think that? A stateless free society cannot exist.
@@zachary7897 Yss, homelessness and famine is awesome
@@zachary7897 Why do these types of people always assume the world is as simplistic as "ideas failed. the end." and COMPLETELY neglect the actual material history that caused these failures? wouldn't it make more sense to analyze and see what the USSR did wrong, what made it turn out that way, etc., and see what could be done better next time instead of saying bad ideas are what killed it?
terrible oversimplification of marx that leaves out class struggle, possibly the most important aspect of marxism.
Genocide
@Dim class conflict doesn't exist?
@Dim so strikes are "manufactures" by elites?
even if working-class "win". they still a working class.
to have happiness or improving quality of life, one has to deal with tremendous sacrifice or be born with the family who in past life going through the sacrifice.
working-class know nothing how to improve life, but complain and complain.
in the end, they cant escape fate.
@@hellatze that's the most ignorant thing I've heard today, lol
A model of bad journalism, spoonfed by fun animations. A gross oversimplification.
And what exactly do you disagree with, in terms of this video?
It is actually a rather objective presentation
It does not really describe Marx's ideology but it points out Marx's critique of what he himself called capitalism
@@jaroslavconka3042 Towards the end it straight up lies and claims that Marx was wrong about capitalism being able to enrich people. This is something Marx himself pointed out. It's also funny that they claim he was virtually unknown while alive, since, for example, he sent a few letters back and forth with Abraham Lincoln, who was a bit of an admirer. The video was also inaccurate in saying that the ideas of communism came about after his death, since he used the term and theorized a bit about the transition from capitalism to communism and laid out important characteristics. It also entirely skipped over historical and dialectical materialism, which were developed by Marx and are crucial to understanding his theories.
@@vallokius886 Oh yeah. Interesting. So the video is annoying because it tries to be correct and therefore seems correct and objective. On reality however, it even gives us some lies about him. The Economist is conservative propaganda after all
More propaganda here than on Twitter. 👇
Batter be poor under capitalism than dead under communism
"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"
"The number of people in absolute poverty has diminished"
Me: Ah yes... Wait, what?
talking in relative terms. while wealth has raised collectively, RATE at which people have attained wealth has been increasingly favorable for capitalists.
@@shollyboster9115 "The number of people in absolute poverty has diminished" is true, globally since 1980. China did the heavy-lifting, which is communist/capitalist hybrid.....
What's nice about capitalism as marx points out is that eventually there is a surplus of supply. If you combine this with Marx's other argument that air isnt payed for because it is abundant then you can easily see why it is less important nowadays to have capital to have a life full of modern luxuries.
@@Itthew China is anything but socialist.
@The BlackMace im chinese and your right china is only communist for the sake of one party rule its communist policy is only there to benefit the party power base its financial policy is extreamly captialistic much more so then the us the term dictatorship/captialism is indeed a more accurate
Sources for this video: just trust me bro
Source for this video: i read the book trust me bro. Proceeds to show they havent read the books.
😆😆😆
So tens of millions didn't die under communism in the 1900s.
@@lukethomeret-duran5273 exactly how? care to elaborate?
source: every socialist/communist country that ever existed and History 🙂
I remember completely reading Marx's Capital, and was so overwhelmed and blown away by his analysis. I needed some time to comprehend his work ethic and diligence, because I'd never read a genius before and was in awe how a human being could've produced such a thing. Through his analysis, that man was ahead of his time, and is waiting paitently for us to rise to his call.
Brother, I am a Chinese, I can tell you very responsibly, our government has been really developing our country, now our people can have food and clothing, communism is seeking the interests of the majority of people, "serve the people"! If you have the chance, welcome to visit China, you will definitely be shocked by it, happiness comes from people's efforts.❤
@@user-bh9xh3xb5tYou have a fascist regime, not communist. Move to North Korea then if you love communism so much.
Bro really wrote Kapital with a c 💀💀💀
@Chrisalex82
Uh... yeah lol? “Das Kapital” is the German name, in English it’s called “Capital”...
@@user-bh9xh3xb5t Communism is the achievement of a classless, stateless, moneyless society (doesn't sound like China). China, on the other hand, is an authoritarian, capitalist state, of which (supposedly) "socialist" (in reality authoritarian) policies concentrate around controlling citizens.
If you're really a socialist who cares about the movement, never ever mention the lie that China is communism, because in reality is not even close to being socialist.
Just read his book
i wouldnt trust anyone to explain to me in 3 minutes
Marx wrote dozens of books, my guy, his collected works are thousands of pages long
Exactly what I expected from the economist
Just because their interests don't allign with Marx doesn't mean criticism isn't fair. Get over it.
@@LoremasterLiberaster Their interests are of the bourgeoisie. The economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class.
Criticisms towards Marx, whatever they are, should only come from communists, and not bourgeois economists.
It would Help If one read Marx before doing a report on His theory.
You don't need to read his work. You just need to see the real life result of his theory: 100 milon copses, famine, devastation of entire nations.
@@radutomoiaga994 The supposed "100 million" deaths from communism is a completely made up number. It's based on The Black Book of Communism, which has been debunked several times - even by Harvard scholars. Both for bad math, absurd guesses and so on. But just to make a point, let's just "assume" that socialist countries and famines occuring there have killed a 100 million people, from 1917 to 1991. That's 100 million people over 74 years. Now take capitalism, an anarchic and chaotic mode of production that produces e.g. food for more than 10 billion people, and yet 900 million can't even eat properly. Between 20 to 25 million people die each year under capitalism, because of distribution-related problems. That means, every 5 years, capitalism kills more people than socialism supposedly has over 74 years. Over the same period of time, capitalism kills 1440 million people - and that's inherent to the capitalist system, not because of geography-related famines.
@zachary bukhari Are these things inherent to socialism? No. What is inherent to capitalism is the contradiction between exchange-value and use-value. In short: The commodity form in capitalism means that things are sold because they're used by people, but instead of then distributing based on use-value, we produce and distribute based on a maximization of exchange-value. This is why the housing crisis happened for example. Or why 20 million people die because of economically preventable causes every single year - because of a distribution problem inherent to capitalism. So tell me which one killed more, the trillion deaths from capitalism, or the 20 million deaths from "communism" that happened over 70 years (and that is if you count geographical famines in the USSR and China - ones that would have happened. But just a reminder that the quality of life increased massively in both the PRC and the USSR as compared to the previous regimes, under KMT and the Tsarist semi-feudal empire respectively. Not to mention that famines occuring every 2-3 years in both Russia and China suddenly stopped - maybe because collectivization of agriculture and the social ownership of the means of production tied together with a distributing based on utility works).
Capitalism does not work for the masses.
@zachary bukhari He literally explained capitalism's death toll to you
@@radutomoiaga994 capitalism kills 20 million people annually
He was right, but was ahead of his time.
he was a psychopath, nothing more.
No he was left
@@het6618 The left didn't exist until 1900s.
@@erenjeager9442 oh come on he's the father of the left ideology
@@het6618 are you referring to Democrats Left Ideology?
Short answer: no
Long answer: nah
pretty sure marx/engels were not about distributing wealth "evenly," but _fairly._ To each according to their needs, not to each according to evenness.
EDIT: to be fair, the word "fairly" up there is not quite accurate either, as that can be subjective.
Many have that misconception
So there are criteria involved...
Then I need every bit of coin in the world in my pocket.
How would you define what is everyone's needs?
@@karlhans4116 bread and roses
i’m so glad i actually read his work before watching this because boy oh boy...
+
Ivan Ivanov +
@@roskcity +
You mean you bought economically illiterate utopian propaganda from a loser who’s ideology inspired mass tyranny and death of dozens of millions
@@mmml6499 no we’re talking about communism not capitalism 🤨
Welfare states are not pure capitalism. They are mixed economies.
I am not a communist but I must note that there are some benefits of communism that can't seem to be solved with democracy or capitalism. In a communism state, where pure communism could be achieved without a corrupt leader, crime envy and rivalry would be a thing of the past. Of course, having a leader who can manage an entire country without corruption is almost impossible to find, communism could be the solution to many of the world's problems including starvation, economic instability etc.
What a stunning and objective look at the theories laid out by Karl Marx, thank you, Bourgeois Economists!
Karl marx was not an economist, he was a philosopher. If you bring his Philosophical ideologies in economics, disaster is bound to happen.
@@rikishi555
Clearly you haven't read Marx
@@rikishi555 That's nonsense, Marx, like Adam Smith and David Ricardo before him, were writing political economy, which incorparates philosophical, social, economical and political themes. If Marx is 'just a philospher' then so is Ricardo. Btw, the theories of Milton Friedman etc are highly ideological
@@raymondhartmeijer9300 it is because of milton friedman, China is a rich country despite being a communist state. Tell me which country is rich because of karl marx?
@@rikishi555 You are mistaken. This is policy from within the CCP
"the economist is the newspaper that speaks for British millionaires" - Lenin
who could be capitalist
@john smith a society we live in
Lenin, a man that began history’s largest death machine.
@@RandomPerson-go5sn capitalism kills roughly 20 million people anually , did Lenin start that? 😳
Weekly Sassuage I am truly curious as for your source on that number.
sounds like the economist skipped over the "bourgeois socialist" section of the Communist Manifesto.
not that they actually bothered to read it.
Hmmm, this video was made by "The Economist?" I wonder what conclusion they will draw about this whole socialism and communism idea?
The funniest part of the video is that what they said at the start about the rich oppressing workers has never been more true than today.
Your pfp seems kinda sus ngl 😳
@@rickrolld1367 actually no, in the industrial revolution people would work 20 hours a day, including children, in the most developed countries, today that is comparatively rare in those same places
@@SenorGuina 20 hour workdays would be lethal for most people, right?
@@zwiebelface185 you'd be impressed by what people can do to not starve
Oh yeah, economist is mouth and tongue of british millionaires
Eh most economists agree it is a fairly balanced newspaper although politically it may be centre right
And yet, The Economist seems worried about disparities.
Bourgeois economist reviewing Marx . What more could I expect .
Most Marxists are also Bourgeois morons.
"Was Karl Marx right?"
No, He was left.
Yes I Definitely “believe you” that capitalism has “reformed”
Shut up
based, my comrade
it did
Nope capitalism won’t work. We need something new. It doesn’t have to be communism but it has to be something better. Or just let society fold
@@blankblank5409 hope you don't blunge the world back to the dark ages.
He didn't ONLY write the manifesto. What about Capital? His most IMPORTANT WORK
you really think they did that much research? XD
It’s in the video lol?
It's shown in the video.
incoherent ramblings last time i read it
@@vignasimp2835 i guess it is a bit more complicated than mainstream television
I’ve just started learning about him in my intro to philosophy class at my university and so far what I can say is that he knew what was wrong with society at the time but didn’t really lay out a specific plan to follow. Also they didn’t mention his 1844 manuscripts which a lot of people gloss over
Keep learning. You won't find any laid out plan in Marx's writing, or blueprints on what to do. That's not the way the world works, and you won't be able to change it like that.
Hi, id like to encourage you to keep learning as well but not in the condescending tone the commenter above you gave. Socialism can change the world 😊
Have you heard of Kropotkin by any chance?
He did talk a lot about Dictatorships, though. He REALLY liked that. 😉
@@erikduvald6703 Hi, did you know that Socialists and Anarchists criticized Marx's view on the dictatorship of the proletariat? This is where the term "libertarian" comes from.
Class struggle
Marx is always right, but yourr capitalistic egos never allow to agree his statements
the comment section is gonna get messy
Now there's a prediction I can believe in
I've pooped twice in it.
Oh no it won't lol
I'm quick
You mean Our comment section.
A lot of Marxists here. This channel is biased towards Marx as well. Fucking commie bastards. Better dead than red!
"Only eleven people attended his funeral" Thats more people than I currently have in my life right now. What is wrong with 11 people going to your funeral????
Marx was a loser that's why.
@Disgusting_Developer Marx Kommunismus Manifesto gemacht aber er überzeugen Menschen etwa gescheitert seine Arbeit
Right. Also, how is that even relevant to his work.
It shows that he was unknown@@manuelllaneras
He lived in SEVERAL countries, he died in a foreign country, It is kind of clear not many would attend. Whoever wrote the article is not very smart, or is secretly trying to be smart to convince people.
long story short: yes
No, he was not.
How inaccurate do you want this to be?
The Economist: yes
What are all the inaccuracies boss?
@Shane O he never underestimated capitalism. Just because capitalism has reforms like social welfare doesn’t make if an unstable system. Social welfare is like putting a bandaid on an open wound, it won’t fix the actual issue at hand which is the expropriation of the worker by the capitalist
@@iskra2.018 Thats 1 inaccuracy. Is there any others?
@@slayerdeth0705 yes, claiming that “tens of millions” of average citizens died under communism is highly inaccurate
@@iskra2.018 It was way more.
How did the communist pass his exam?
He got full Marx.
Nice pun
*She/he
In Capitalist America, your job decides your marks.
In Soviet Russia, Marx decides your job.
@@jatinabhir9249 they*
@@jatinabhir9249 they even
"Capitalism created welfare states that redistributed wealth" bruh, that was major socialist and communists party did
The ones who did it were social democrats, not socialists and communists.
@@perfectlyfine1675 Social democrats were reformist socialists at the time welfare states were conceived.
Welfare states are still reliant on the exploitation of the global South
@@Leo-fz7kz no, reformist socialists are democratic socialists, not social democrats, I understand that it's easy to mix the two, but please don't. Also, welfare states aren't dependant on the exploition of anything, they're funded by the large taxes in developed countries.
Perfectly Fine Social democracy has changed a lot, it was reformist socialism until the latter half of the 20th century and some people consider it to be that even today. Also, modern welfare states wouldn’t be sustainable without globalism and the availability of cheap labour and materials in the global South. This has been know forever and the likes of Lenin predicted it ages ago.
"The Economist, a journal that speaks for the British millionaires," - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Karl Marx gave humanity the greatest critique of Capitalism, still relevant today.
That' why the bourgeoisie hates him so much.
When you make the poverty line $1.25 a day and then say you reduced poverty- Capitalism.
And do not take into account that money is made out of thin air and it is being pumped at trillions into system so it can "fall over" to poor.
You are so dumb.Go chech statistics
And didnt talk about inflation.
We did it boys , we ended poverty.
the poverty line just adjusted for inflation and quality of life has gone up
Marx had called ‘The Economist’ as a ‘mouthpiece of bootlicking bourgeoisie’!
Yes, he was right!
I don't know about Marx, but you r absolutely right!!!
You think you live in poverty by world history standards? LOLLLLL
That may be, but Marxists are bootlickers of the state.
Can’t lick someone’s boot if they are dead by starvation
he was left
Workers of the world unite
Short answer: YES!
Barely touches on actual Marxian political-economy: labor theory of value, tendency of the rate of profit to fall, etc. this video spent more time on Leninism, Marx's personal life, etc.
Thomas Mascari exactly, and they equated Stalin’s totalitarianism with Marx’s calls for a stateless society. Neither the right nor the left are monoliths and treating everyone who claims to be on the left as descendants of mao and Stalin is completely intellectually dishonest. People hear economic control and clutch their pearls claiming the government is gonna control their lives when they can’t see the current “laissez-faire” approach (if you could even call it that unironically) leads to corporations and the wealthy taking over economic control instead. Until there’s an actual non hierarchical, stateless, classless society like Marx predicted and advocated for there will always be someone or some group of people in charge of the economy and until that society emerges, if it ever does, you have to choose whether you want to advocate for an elected government to be in charge of the economy or some capitalist who’s main goal is to extract as much surplus value out of your labor as possible
It's a 3 min video on his 200 year anniversary what do you expect.
The Economist has made videos of this format over 7 minutes long, and using that time to actual talk about his contributions to political-economy would have afforded them some intellectual integrity.
what did you expect?
Marx didn't believe in LTV he believe in the Law of Value
The video was just bad and testifies to a naive and superficial research.
just like trotskyism
@@DialecticalMaterialismRocks Nope.
It is bourgeois propaganda meant to mislead the masses, what else can you expect
Death to the farmers, right comrades?
@@calebdorsey7591 Death to the kulaks, those pesky land owners. More like slave owners amirite? Send them to the Gulag
Capitalist propaganda
Better than communist propaganda
The way the Soviet Anthem just started playing randomly
Was Karl Marx right? No, obviously he was left.
Das Video war wirklich bescheuert
I bet this video maker hasn’t even read any Marx‘s book, not mention to trying to figure out his theories.
Short answer, yes
There is so much factually wrong with this video…
Like what
@@dcttd8022 for starters, Marx did not explicitly state that wealth had to be shared equally. He stated that wealth had to be distributed to meet the needs of everyone. Or, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And this does extend to the needs of self actualization. He also held that all production needed to be held in common, and that’s a pretty wide net in terms of what it could mean mind you. Socialists believe that property not used for production like your house, apartment, car, and tooth brush fit into a class of property called personal property and private property explicitly refers to property that other people add their labor to, in order to produce, like a factory. All private property being held in common could very well be satisfied by worker coops being the sole organization of production. It’s more an oversimplification of what Marxism is than anything else.
@@robyn0608 Why should we care? His ideas killed millions!
I think a system where everyone is happy without having to break their backs or spend a hundred thousand dollars on a degree is possible.
@@joaquin991 Capitalism is a flawed system too. There has never been an unflawed system. I'm just saying its possible to create a society where people don't need to worry about poverty and homelessness. Socialism and Communism failed because of corruption at the top. But if you could solve that a perfect system could be possible.
@@joerogaine3093 Well how do we possibly create a system that could eradicate the fear of poverty and homelessness? capitalism, or eco-socialism if you do not care for the environment. UBI is the future, I have no idea why it labeled as "socialism" or "radical" for that matter. Nowadays trying to help the poor is "radical".
Oh cool the land of make believe!
@@abrarfaiyaz3163 How? Come to Europe
@@boryssobczak1563I definitely misread the comment. Now that I read the comment again I agree!
"Was Karl Marx right?"
No,he was left
...and wrong. 100 million dead would agree.
@@DemonDog444 where is 100million death, can you show us? And can you blame Bible for all deaths caused by Christians?
@@DemonDog444 that stat has beem proven wrong more than once
@@DemonDog444 That was not because of communism it was because of authoritarianism and capitalism killed billions.
@@DemonDog444 This number has been proven wrong countless times by many people throughout the years. The 100 Million Dead figure comes from the Black Book of Communism has been debunked several times - even by Harvard scholars. Both for bad math, absurd guesses and so on.
Wow I'm sure The Economist has no agenda here
The fact that he’s relevant is a testament to the validity of at least some of his thinking.
The USSR was not Marx's vision of communism. You forgot to say that. I fixed it for you.
Can Marxs vision ever come through?
Thank you, this video is insidious because try to give simple explanations for complex problems, and then I will do the same 20 century socialism isn't the end of socialism but its beginning, will be other forms of political and social organization if capitalism doesn't destroy the Earth.
"iTs nOt rEaL cOmMuNiSm"
-every communist/socialist/marxist everytime socialism/communism fails-
Perhaps, but Marx's vision of communism requires a strong state to enforce 'public ownership' and 'equal redistribution'. This type of state cannot exist without absolute power, ergo they need to crack down ruthlessly on opposition. And this is the most optimist and neutral approach, in practice those supporting communism are generally resentful of the rich and will engage in organized slaughter of them when given the power to do so (In Cambodia especially).
Nemanja ĆIrić compassion?😂😂😂😂
In the middle of the woods when a wolf den is surrounding you. You people talk compassion and equality😂😂😂 oh the hilarity.
You got me in the first half, not going to lie..
Marx : was/is and will remain the hero.
Now people are talking about UBI( Universal basic Income ), Healthcare for all,LGBTQ rights etc.
Didn’t The Economist hate Marx back when he was alive?
Marx never underestimated the productive capabilities of capitalism. He just said that there was a better way we can be productive with a social plan instead of the chaos of the market which wastes a lot of resources(expenditure on marketing instead of R&D, turbulent equilbration, over 80% firm failure rate, resource depletion/environmental degradation...)
@Glorious Bastard so you would rather pay $700 for insulin or an EpiPen (and also go into lifelong debt simply for existing) rather than losing your options of CoolRanch™ or NachoCheese™
@Glorious Bastard not true. Companies always will attempt to drive the price of their goods upwards. Their primary focus is in making money.
@Glorious Bastard you literally just made an argument for socialism. Consumers will purchase what is cheapest, while also maintaining quality. This creates a problem because monopolies form. They can't simply be "broken up"
See Mises' problem of economic calculation. Markets are far more productive and less wasteful than planning
It's always strange to see people making this argument, especially since he argues that capitalists are constantly revolutionising the means of production in Capital volume 1.
It's almost as if the people most eager to criticize Marx haven't read him.
The question really should be - has the "Economist" ever been right?
If you’re implying that marx has been more right that the economist you’re not going to get very far.
Right leaning for sure lol
@@nicob4115 So they were right about slavery?
It has always been far right
Very qood question hahaha
Bro the 11 people are truly badass
You had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
That "welfare state" image, though. Half of that was military spending and the hospitals still charge fortunes.
capitalism didn't reform itself, the government had to reform it!
Samuel Sparenga you are correct, but not in the way you probably think.
Example: Healthcare has gone through many reforms to the point that it’s not even a free market. These reforms have been institutionalized by the government. Healthcare now in the United States is garbage, due to Keynesians and Marxist type politicians.
Most of the good reforms happen under capitalism, very little to no government intervention.
Example: Food industries. Never have we seen before a market quite like our modern food industry. With very little government intervention we are able to produce food products that are extremely cheap and plentiful. Markets are incentivized to produce fresh and clean foods mainly due to public demand. While yes there are some state specific regulations and protections, they don’t really do much that markets haven’t already done. If anything a lot of these regulations inhibit more food being spread out. People no longer have to depend on growing or hunting their own food, but are still free to do so, but it in many ways it’s cheaper and requires less work to just go to a grocery store.
The working class had to force the government to reform it and even then every now and then the capitalists successfully manage to roll back those reforms
....giving the means of production to the workers
@@saman.rostami
Oh boy, free to choose, do I want a 60 hour work week or do I want ro jump off a Monsanto roof *so many choices*
The state is a capitalist tool to structure society. The state is the immanence of the merchandise. In other words, this is capitalism in its development that has created the state, not the other way around. Start reading Marx instead of assuming and repeating what you have been told. Reading Marx will blow your mind and make you conceptualise life totally differently.
“Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!”
"In the long run, we are all dead"
-Keynes.
I mean, he ain't wrong but in the meantime...
I don't think he was wrong, I think we (humans ) just did it wrong.
Any political discussion that uses the word "Jewish" is always off to a great start
The parameters for measuring poverty used in this video are so low and arbitrary that one can only grin at something so silly. Poor people continue to be poor and they're even worse than ever 'cause the needs floor for basic worthy living nowadays has arisen. Gotta be a bit more critical.
"...however Marx underestimated the ability of capitalism to make everybody richer by making products much cheaper."
Correction:
Those cheaper products are made by cheap labours in third world countries to make everybody (in western countries) getting richer.
Aditya Adinegoro correction to your correction: Yes, things can be made cheaper by outsourcing labor, but mostly things became cheaper because capitalism fosters innovation (such as the assembly line, interchangeable parts, etc) which make things cheaper to produce.
Sigma Geranimo Well for both of you I have a simple answer. Sigma, under previous administrations, taxes have been relatively high on businesses and their products in the U.S. (higher taxes being more characteristic of socialism btw). For this reason companies have found it cheaper to set up shop elsewhere and import their products here with no economic consequence. Cheaper labor can be a factor, but now that we have more fair taxes on their imports, many businesses are actually coming back and saving money. Muhammad, while creating new products and selling them does get more expensive, profits tend to be relative (to an extent) to the amount of production. So yes, we make more goods but we also make more money. At least that’s what I think you’re getting at, if it’s not lmk and we can discuss further.
Nailed it....
@Sigma Geranimo they moved out because of taxes. If the government didn't raise the taxes for rich people/companies, they would have stayed.
I didn't even live in the USA, and I know that Obama is left leaning, like big government, high taxes, socialism. You can't tax people who have the money to move where they will be taxed less.
You should be ashamed of yourself, go learn about your own country
@Sigma Geranimo I am from Brazil, here the average worker get paid 350 USD per month for a full time job, 2 per hour I think, not sure.
Tell me, why aren't companies from USA opening factories here? Why aren't they creating more jobs, why don't they come here. Want know why?
Because the government doesn't let them profit. There is a law which forces ALL corporation to pay the same salary of the employees for the government as taxes. You understand how fucked up that is? If a Baker from your neighborhood decide to hire someone to help him he is forced to pay the minimum wage twice, one for the teenager and another for the government, twice the spending.
Now imagine that on a big corporation, with more the thousands of employees. Did you get how fucked up that is, how the government intervention is holding back my country from growth and becoming a first world country.
We're all here for a quick laugh aren't we?
You correctly say a communist society is stateless but then blame it for the ensuing tyranny even though such a stateless society was never reached. No, the process got stuck at what most would actually describe as state capitalism (or state socialism), and a highly authoritarian state at that, hence the tyranny.
+myths. How many billions did Stalin shoot?
@@wederMaxim ??? what billions
because it's unreachable and impossible.
@@SocialistDawg it was a joke I think.
Finally someone who understands the socialism correctly commented
No, but the German guy from the 1930's was.
True
People who often critisize communism, have enough money and are wealthy.
But what can the poor do or say.
We work all our lives, and we cant even own a house.
Its a harsh life, capatalism is equivently to slavery.
This is like a high school essay that was written the day it was due
This is essentially a troll video made by *The Economist* to make fun of those Sneaky teenagers trying to prepare an essay just before deadline .
Believe me : I'm trolled
Im trying to start a revolution, who is going to be my sugar daddy, who will be my Engels?
No, all his ideas already got refuted by actual economists like Mises, Hayek etc..
I was assigned to watch this video in my core humanities class... I am a political science and international affairs major and boy oh boy did this makes LAUGH.
TH-cam algorithms won't allow a highly educated video on Marxism to be at the top of the search list.
please educate meeeeee
What exactly is funny about it?
@@OFilellinas γεια σου φρεντ
Right from the beginning I can call bullshit.
Marx provided a critique of Capitalism. Not "solution", but critique. Further, Marx's theory, if I can simplify, is the theory of evolution applied to economics.
The "solutions" you are talking about are the charecteristic of what Capitalism will evolve into.
Marxism is not some other economic ideology one chooses willy nilly like icecream.
Feudalism evolved into Mercantilism which evolved into Capitalism (which can be said to have evolved into Welfare Capitalism and Mixed Markets), I don't see why it wouldn't neccesarily evolve further - perhaps into some absurdo-gamified economy.
Ben Berzai Free trade evolved into crony capitalism. Some people like Carnegie, rockerfeller etc... They won the competition. And got extremely wealthy. Crony capitalism is a response to the fact that in reality, wealthy people will always go into politics. The idea that free trade and voluntary choice remain that way forever is hilarious.
I suggest you read up on marcus Licinius crassus, and how a free market and voluntary trade let him amount the same fortune as the roman senate. Now once you have read about him, then tell me if voluntary trade didn’t change into something more hideous.
Treasury not senate*
Capitalism isn't just the free exchange of goods. Exchanges of goods have been a staple in humanity for thousands of years, while capitalism is only a few hundred years old.
Capitalism is the setup where you have a class of people who own the businesses, factories, and infrastructure, and the class of people who actually operate these things (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat). This is juxtaposed by, for example, feudalism, where a king who owned vast swathes of land divvied up into fiefs and put it under the dominion of lords, who would allow peasants to farm on the land and protect them militarily in exchange for taxes.
mykal Fallacious argument. That’s like saying gravity was invented by Newton. It wasn’t. It was named and enumerated. Capitalism is as old two people freely exchanging goods for mutual benefit.
No.
The Economist makes "worst review of Marx ever" and are subsequently dunked on in the youtube comment section
I guess this channel is pro capitalism
well yeah it's the economist lmao
Economy thrives on capitalism and it dies with communism, of course this channel is pro capitalism, withotu capitalism, TH-cam wouldn't even exist, let alone the internet, and every other object.
@@pedromeneses5661 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
@Rudy Serrano en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
No, he can centralize all property into a single group of ppl making the rest equally poor. Sounds great right?
How to sound like an ignoramus
Step 1. Don't read Marx
Step 2. Criticize Marx
*ignoramus
FASHMASTER
Yeesh, I was just saying people shouldn't criticize ideas that they don't understand and wouldn't bother to educate themselves on.
Does misspelling a word diqualify that point? What does my user name have to do with this? And I'll risk being called pretentious to counter all the ignorance that surrounds the topic of Marx.
Sooooo...go fuck yourself?
We don't even need to read his book, we have multiple nation's who have tried to follow his ideas and have killed billions in the quest to do so.
Simple, try living with a communist and realize how insecure and flawed their ideologies.
Yeah, none of the above gives you any special insight on Marx. Read it and you might see WHY such nations fail or WHY your roomate is annoying. Otherwise you are bound to take Marx out of context
This comment section shows how difficult it is for certain people to grasp the idea of "format" and its constraints. This is an extremely short video meant to provide an **extremely brief** summary of the most **salient** and **practical** ways in which Marx was right or wrong. It is not meant to "explain Marxism". It is not meant to "provide a rigorous critique of Marx's ideas". It is just a bullet-point summary. And if you think something in this video is inaccurate, go ahead and explain what it is instead of writing "lol tHiS iS iNacCuRaTe aNd EcOnOmiST BaD CoZ eCoNoMiST caPiTaLiST lolz". I suspect many of you, 20-year-old self-proclaimed Marxism experts, would be very quickly humbled if you actually met and talked about Marxism and economics with the people behind the production of this video.
Year 2023: Yes, he was.