This is a truly incredible talk. I'm somewhat disheartened by the comment section, suggesting that people did not bother to listen to the talk. Essentially Marx correctly identifies the existence of a class of exploiters and exploited. However, he incorrectly places the blame on a misguided understanding of capitalism instead of non-voluntary expropriation of goods by the state.
Few are class-conscious. There are some, but most people either think government intervention in the economy is necessary, or don't even respect private property and support socialism.
The dirty little secret in the US is that far more than half no nothing of their own history and even less of the foundational philosophy behind the concept of Liberty that the nation was supposed to have been founded on. Other than that, many who champion freedom tend to fear it the most because freedom for you means freedom for others. Once others are free to do, then you will find that those stating a preference for freedom are at the same time opposed to it utterly.
The majority of people are deficient in both logical ability and morality, and this will always be the case. Change for the better only occurs when society's betters, the natural aristocracy, adopt austro-libertarianism.
Worst part is that most of this is completely obvious. The fact that it has to be explained is a pretty sad statement for how strong cognitive bias is.
Marx wasn't a bad author at all, he just maid some crucial mistakes on some of this works, also, many of his ideas were misused or simply changed by today's socialists. Still, though, Marx was indeed wrong in a lot of ways, but if he himself saw what Marxism and socialism has become throughout the decades he'd surely be really sad.
govt is defined by its violence. take the violence away, and you have nothing more than a rulebook, which doesn't accomplish anything without someone to compel people to follow it. eliminating violence is a great idea, but you can't do it by declaration or wishing or computer programing. the freedom of individuals must be defended physically (and violently) by individuals.
Legislation of private law via Smart Contracts Jurisdiction by an algorithm embedded in Smart Contracts Execution by combining it with Cryptocurrency as a contracted measurement of keeping the contract. If the embedded currencies contract is violated the trust lost equates into a diminished value of the currency compared to other contracts currencies in the marketplace.
He did a lot of great mass murder and oppression at the behest of the capitalist empire that propped up his regime to stamp out populist socialist movements, also known as the US government
I never understood how Marx could talk about the expropriation, implemented by the capitalist, of the surplus value produced by the worker: indeed, you need both capital and labour to produce everything, so it sounds entirely right and sensible to me that both capital and labour are remunerated for their production, meaning that i deem it self-evident that the price of every good incorporates both wages and returns on equity/capital.
Fabrizio Ferrari Marx said commodities are exchanged for their equivalents. For the worker the commodity they sell is labour-power, their ability to labour and its price is determined by the cost of its reproduction. However in the working day the capitalist receives the use-value of that labour and so the worker can produce more value than the cost of their own labour. The difference is “surplus value” which is expropriated by the capitalist. For a Marxist response to most of the issues presented in this lecture read the following: www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/08/val1-a13.html A reply to correspondence on Marx's theory of value EXTRACT ... It is clear, as Marx put it, that mankind did not descend from the trees divided into a class of capitalists and wage workers. This division is a product of a whole historical epoch. The pre-condition for the development of capitalist production is in fact the separation of the direct producers from the means of production, the accumulation of those means of production in the hands of a minority, and the creation of a social class with nothing to sell but its labour power. Taking this division as given, as natural, the bourgeois economists then proceeded to develop the theory that profit was the reward for waiting ... END
I read the first chapters of the Capital some years ago, during my first year in college studying economics, and I remeber that even back then I used to think that the very definition of "expropriation of the surplus value of the worker" did not make sense at all to me: indeed, the labourer cannot be even close to be as productive as he is by means of the tools and the machines provided by the capitalist if the capital necessary to provide those machines and tools does not exist at first, so I strongly believe that the definition of "expropriation of surplus value" does not have any microeconomical ground or foundation, inasmuch as labour alone has only an infinitesimal productive potential (and hence value) when not combined with capital. What Marx called the "expropriation of surplus value" I think is simply, under a microeconomicas perspective, the remunaration of one factor of production, which is (in this particular case) the return on capital, totally analogous to the return on labour (i.e. wage). More concisely, my perplexity is: why talk about expropriation of the surplus value, when the surplus value becomes feasible and is produced by the laborer only thanks to the capital provided by the capitalist? How could it be an expropriation, when there is this sinergy between labour and capital? Industrial Revolution was made possible by capital accumulation, so why did Marx blame capital so much? Perhaps society became less equitable, but i believe that even the most unlucky person in the world in 1870 was living better than a fair share of population 1000 years before.
@@Max-nc4zn The state appropriates value from its citizens by means of coerced tax, and the bourgeois appropriates surplus value from its labourers by means of "profit". Thus, both are morally unjustified ─ all other things being equal.
Christ did not talk about classes. He talked about the coming Kingdom that is not to be built by rebellion but with love and forgiveness. Greetings from Poland.
Could you please repost, with the corrected and integral sound. Some parts are missing. If that is not possible, please link the transcripts of the talk. Thanks
Ultimately there's nothing new or interested about life once you've studied. The only thing that's preventing progress is those who think they should always provide a antithesis to the truth.
@@GoldHunter606Odd, considering that you seem to consider yourself as a "sane" individual, while judging others because they don't live according to your personal biases.
Marx based his criticisms of capitalism on classical economics (David Ricardo, Adam Smith, etc). Keynes based his economic theory on the basis of control; he was totally full of shit, even more so than Marx.
"a Ruling class never comes to power because there is a demand for it" is an untrue statement as exemplified in: the Old Testament demand for a king by the people, the invitation of the vikings by the slavs to come rule over them to name at least two examples.
I love Hoppe, but both him and Marx are wrong here. Or rather, Rothbardian ethics are very wrong. The Moldbugian understanding of power and ethics is far, far better. Marx probably has some truth in his writings, but I'm not educated enough to find what it is But Hoppes criticism of Marx's idea about surplus value is absolutely correct
I have watched several talks by Yarvin and I agree his views on power and power dynamics are - let's say - less simplistic, but could you ellaborate more on Ethics? I can see Ethics prominent and rigourous in Rothbard and Hoppe, but I still don't get a clear idea of Yarvin's Ethics.
@@sendadiestra7203 he is amoral, i.e. he doesn't talk about ethics. To him government is a tool, a operating system. Do what's most efficient as 99% of the time what government does is a managerial role and not a ethical issue
@@sendadiestra7203 that's true too. He often quotes James Burnham's book "The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom". Which btw is an excellent book in its on right but it also serves as a good primer to Moldbug
@Fllamber the difference is that there is no christian race, tribe or ethnicity, the christian religion is disconnected from race, judaism is however completely tied to the jewish race
This is a truly incredible talk. I'm somewhat disheartened by the comment section, suggesting that people did not bother to listen to the talk. Essentially Marx correctly identifies the existence of a class of exploiters and exploited. However, he incorrectly places the blame on a misguided understanding of capitalism instead of non-voluntary expropriation of goods by the state.
Time Preference is something you aren't even taught in University economic classes.
jesus.
Not in the fundamental theoretical sense. But discounts and interest rates are one of the most important concepts.
Why are not more people in the US, the supposed land to the free, pushing Hans Hoppe's Idea of a Private Law Society??
Few are class-conscious. There are some, but most people either think government intervention in the economy is necessary, or don't even respect private property and support socialism.
The dirty little secret in the US is that far more than half no nothing of their own history and even less of the foundational philosophy behind the concept of Liberty that the nation was supposed to have been founded on.
Other than that, many who champion freedom tend to fear it the most because freedom for you means freedom for others. Once others are free to do, then you will find that those stating a preference for freedom are at the same time opposed to it utterly.
Because private law society doesn't work.
@@linkinlinkinlinkin654 ?
The majority of people are deficient in both logical ability and morality, and this will always be the case. Change for the better only occurs when society's betters, the natural aristocracy, adopt austro-libertarianism.
Worst part is that most of this is completely obvious. The fact that it has to be explained is a pretty sad statement for how strong cognitive bias is.
Anything, even simple things can be elaborated and further analysed
@@Prometheus7272 True. Including sadness around the extent of ignorance.
Truuuu
Now that's a spicy title.
graphic animations to illustrate what he talked about would have very good returns
Agreed!
"What Marx gets right". I would have expected a video with that name to be much shorter. MUCH shorter.
SaulOhio Good one.
Hah. It took a lot of time going through corrections ;)
says the guy who hasn't read a line by Marx. (At most The Communist Manisfesto.)
Marx wasn't a bad author at all, he just maid some crucial mistakes on some of this works, also, many of his ideas were misused or simply changed by today's socialists. Still, though, Marx was indeed wrong in a lot of ways, but if he himself saw what Marxism and socialism has become throughout the decades he'd surely be really sad.
@@roc6596 Heh heh... maid.
45 minutes of Hoppe is like a semester of knowledge.
Replace the functions of government with Smart Contracts and Cryptocurrency
govt is defined by its violence. take the violence away, and you have nothing more than a rulebook, which doesn't accomplish anything without someone to compel people to follow it. eliminating violence is a great idea, but you can't do it by declaration or wishing or computer programing. the freedom of individuals must be defended physically (and violently) by individuals.
FidelHimself That won't work, and you know it won't work.
Guillermo Nieves Okay why? Why even leave a comment if you aren’t going to give a reason?
Gee Willickers No shit. We still need people to enforce the contracts we voluntarily agree to. I said nothing about eliminating enforcement.
Legislation of private law via Smart Contracts
Jurisdiction by an algorithm embedded in Smart Contracts
Execution by combining it with Cryptocurrency as a contracted measurement of keeping the contract.
If the embedded currencies contract is violated the trust lost equates into a diminished value of the currency compared to other contracts currencies in the marketplace.
Producers/Contractors VS Exploiters (Non-producers, Non-contractors)
Now do a talk on Pinochet. What Pinochet did right.
🚁... so to speak.
Pinochet is diffinently the best athouritain of all modern history.
He did a lot of great mass murder and oppression at the behest of the capitalist empire that propped up his regime to stamp out populist socialist movements, also known as the US government
@@ubik_3786
And Capitalists will suck him off forever because of that
It's like watching Tankies worship Stalin
Everything Pinochet did was right, except the transition to democracy - that was terible.
false advertising , i thought he was talking about groucho marx .
I never understood how Marx could talk about the expropriation, implemented by the capitalist, of the surplus value produced by the worker: indeed, you need both capital and labour to produce everything, so it sounds entirely right and sensible to me that both capital and labour are remunerated for their production, meaning that i deem it self-evident that the price of every good incorporates both wages and returns on equity/capital.
Fabrizio Ferrari Marx said commodities are exchanged for their equivalents. For the worker the commodity they sell is labour-power, their ability to labour and its price is determined by the cost of its reproduction. However in the working day the capitalist receives the use-value of that labour and so the worker can produce more value than the cost of their own labour. The difference is “surplus value” which is expropriated by the capitalist.
For a Marxist response to most of the issues presented in this lecture read the following:
www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/08/val1-a13.html
A reply to correspondence on Marx's theory of value
EXTRACT
...
It is clear, as Marx put it, that mankind did not descend from the trees divided into a class of capitalists and wage workers. This division is a product of a whole historical epoch. The pre-condition for the development of capitalist production is in fact the separation of the direct producers from the means of production, the accumulation of those means of production in the hands of a minority, and the creation of a social class with nothing to sell but its labour power.
Taking this division as given, as natural, the bourgeois economists then proceeded to develop the theory that profit was the reward for waiting ...
END
I read the first chapters of the Capital some years ago, during my first year in college studying economics, and I remeber that even back then I used to think that the very definition of "expropriation of the surplus value of the worker" did not make sense at all to me: indeed, the labourer cannot be even close to be as productive as he is by means of the tools and the machines provided by the capitalist if the capital necessary to provide those machines and tools does not exist at first, so I strongly believe that the definition of "expropriation of surplus value" does not have any microeconomical ground or foundation, inasmuch as labour alone has only an infinitesimal productive potential (and hence value) when not combined with capital. What Marx called the "expropriation of surplus value" I think is simply, under a microeconomicas perspective, the remunaration of one factor of production, which is (in this particular case) the return on capital, totally analogous to the return on labour (i.e. wage). More concisely, my perplexity is: why talk about expropriation of the surplus value, when the surplus value becomes feasible and is produced by the laborer only thanks to the capital provided by the capitalist? How could it be an expropriation, when there is this sinergy between labour and capital? Industrial Revolution was made possible by capital accumulation, so why did Marx blame capital so much? Perhaps society became less equitable, but i believe that even the most unlucky person in the world in 1870 was living better than a fair share of population 1000 years before.
The state extracts surplus value from society every time it taxes or prints money, so to speak.
@@Max-nc4zn The state appropriates value from its citizens by means of coerced tax, and the bourgeois appropriates surplus value from its labourers by means of "profit". Thus, both are morally unjustified ─ all other things being equal.
@@chrismathew2295 taxation is theft, but profit does not necessarily imply theft.
what a brilliant insight!
The words shortest book.
What is Hans Hoppe's view of cryptocurrencies?
I think he prefers gold but I’m not sure.
It's a free market 🤙 Greshams Law
Christ did not talk about classes. He talked about the coming Kingdom that is not to be built by rebellion but with love and forgiveness. Greetings from Poland.
Who cares.
Christ went into the streets of Birmingham, he stayed in the rain and everyone just walked away. So he sighed for the Calvary.
British poet*
Jesus was a commie. Islam is based. Inshallah > deus vult.
Jesus was an AnCom if there ever was one
financial investors and speculators don’t produce anything ; economic investors, entrepreneurs and laborers actually do something
nah.
i can start with liquidity and price amortization
Could you please repost, with the corrected and integral sound. Some parts are missing. If that is not possible, please link the transcripts of the talk. Thanks
younger people tend to be less wealthy b/c they have a shorter time preference
Thanks Stefan.
Not really. It's because they haven't had as much time to accumulate capital as a middle aged person has.
Young people are still developing the skills needed to accumulate capital.
Ya boy Triple-H at it again.
Ultimately there's nothing new or interested about life once you've studied. The only thing that's preventing progress is those who think they should always provide a antithesis to the truth.
Aka degenerates coping and psychos appealing to the weakminded who are tempted by degeneracy
@@GoldHunter606Odd, considering that you seem to consider yourself as a "sane" individual, while judging others because they don't live according to your personal biases.
Marx was the deadliest man in human history, GOD BLESS CAPITOLSM!!!!!!🇺🇲✝️🇺🇲✝️🇺🇲✝️🇺🇲✝️
speed on 1.25%
comprehension at 75%
He was right about the character of European Jews, that's for sure.
@@TheThreatenedSwan What is meant by "decreasing their fitness"?
@@areez22
It means their relative reproductive success.
I’m an Austrian but if you think Marx was more right than Keynes you’re crazy
Marx based his criticisms of capitalism on classical economics (David Ricardo, Adam Smith, etc). Keynes based his economic theory on the basis of control; he was totally full of shit, even more so than Marx.
10:00 beautiful moment
"a Ruling class never comes to power because there is a demand for it" is an untrue statement as exemplified in: the Old Testament demand for a king by the people, the invitation of the vikings by the slavs to come rule over them to name at least two examples.
Marx's insight on the state is important even though when it comes to economics he is ignorant.
If it’s free
Taking my property
I didn’t understand any of this tbh lol
Paid by ingsls
Free Hong Kong
I love Hoppe, but both him and Marx are wrong here. Or rather, Rothbardian ethics are very wrong. The Moldbugian understanding of power and ethics is far, far better. Marx probably has some truth in his writings, but I'm not educated enough to find what it is
But Hoppes criticism of Marx's idea about surplus value is absolutely correct
I have watched several talks by Yarvin and I agree his views on power and power dynamics are - let's say - less simplistic, but could you ellaborate more on Ethics? I can see Ethics prominent and rigourous in Rothbard and Hoppe, but I still don't get a clear idea of Yarvin's Ethics.
@@sendadiestra7203 he is amoral, i.e. he doesn't talk about ethics. To him government is a tool, a operating system. Do what's most efficient as 99% of the time what government does is a managerial role and not a ethical issue
@@emZee1994 Thank you, that was my impression.
@@emZee1994 Maybe the best word to define his point of view is _machiavellian_ . When you talk about exercising power, ethics is out of the question.
@@sendadiestra7203 that's true too. He often quotes James Burnham's book "The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom". Which btw is an excellent book in its on right but it also serves as a good primer to Moldbug
"what marx got wrong is that he didn't want people to sell me their children"
ha ha hilarious, great point! you refuted hoppe, congratulations!
Cope
like the pedophile elites in control of western states definitely do not do(trust me)
@@xspartan346x those elite are capitalists tho aren't they
The problem is not so much socialism but Judaism.
The solution is not so much capitalism but the White Race.
great argument
@Fllamber The jews as a people and the religion are intertwined, even if they claim to be atheists
@Fllamber the difference is that there is no christian race, tribe or ethnicity, the christian religion is disconnected from race, judaism is however completely tied to the jewish race
So you are telling met to give up my jewish friends for the sake of white racial predestination?
Da fuck