Confused by the methodology? Dialectical Materialism is explained here: th-cam.com/video/nZXaZHe901w/w-d-xo.html Confused by the terminology? "Mode of Production", "Relations of Production", "Productive Forces", etc. are explained here: th-cam.com/video/qja-0gAhxiA/w-d-xo.html
Yet another time you've explained something I've been thinking about in such a clear way that I think about it differently now. Excellent work you're doing.
Great video Paul! Studying the socialist experiments that have happened or are attempting to happen is important and you need a good understanding of the topics in your video to do it justice. Appreciate it! Moving forward for the people!
This video series is great but here is some constructive criticism: - slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism are not only stages and as you said they don't move linearly. This is very eurocentric view. For example, economy of Inca Empire resembles those of feudal societies of Europe in regards to classes(they also had hereditary nobility and lower classes who did all the work) but their economy was planned and there was little to almost no trade/barter. - contradictions of capitalism doesn't need to be resolved in the form of socialism nor is socialism and therefor communism certain to happen in the future. We can examine contradictions to "predict" what can come out of it but multiple outcomes are possible, for example we could all end up in system where capitalist relations exist but when all jobs cease to exist we may keep doing pointless bullshit jobs like in the episode of Black Mirror named Fifteen Million Merits. Apart from that series is great so far.
You're right, since there are two contradicting classes in capitalism (generally speaking) there must be at least two possible syntheses (and probably more, because of variations of power between the two classes) as a conclusion. A most horrific scenario (apart from extinction through global warming, which is still the worst) is if the bourgeoisie is dominant in the conclusion, we might have a capitalist society where the wealthy trade among themselves and production is done by machines and AI. The proletariat will either be left to fend for themselves in a second economy based on scraps, be gotten rid of through genocide because they only pose a nuisance to the wealthy, or they might be pittied on and receive a limited form of UBI making them able to just survive.
Lmfao, definitely no to your second point. Capitalism-Imperialism will die at the hands of the proletariat. Class relations become simplified as the historical process marches forward, they haven’t historically become more complicated.
@@gilbertoaltamirano4543 I think we make a stop at fascism before the greater proletariat become class conscious and either capitalism either crashes epicly or the workers overthrow.
This series is incredible. It's helping me understand socialism and communism SO MUCH. Everyone I know just thinks of failed Russia or Venezuela when socialism or communism is brought up, but I'm learning those societies aren't even actual socialism or communism! Like he said in an earlier video, how can something be a "Communist State" when Communism is the ABOLITION or non-existence of the State! It makes no sense!
Great explainer but my favorite explanation of the subject remains Halim Alrah's summary of the communist manifesto. Not really a fair comparison though, since his video is twice as long.
okay, so, this is probably not a very '101' question, but I'm a bit confused about this: what contradiction exactly was resolved by the transition from ancient slave societies to feudalism? it seems to me that serfdom isn't all that different from slavery in the classical world-sure, it's legally different in most cases and the primary feature was of being tied to the land. I get that each stage will contain remnants of previous stages, but I don't see how those are different, or how a contradiction was resolved in the transition from one to the other. rather, it seems like the administrative state of the Roman empire collapsed and was replaced by superficially different monarchs of smaller regions-in a way that's culturally and aesthetically different from the classical world and before, but not substantively different. what am I missing?
You’re not missing anything. What you are smelling is a Blanket Statement that is obviously false. Not everything is class conflict. Colonialism and Transatlantic Slavery was possible because of Caravels, not some notion of class conflict. Its just a blanket statement that scaffolds their ideology. For example. Marxists will conflate all exploited people without meaningful differentiation. A wage laborer and a slave are not of the same “class”. One is not being exposed to extreme physical violence and deprivation. Marxists conflate in order to justify their warlike ideology.
@@ludlowaloysius you are confusing "slave society" and colonialism. Slavery in slave society (that is, ancient greece, rome and egypt, for example) is very different from chattel slavery in the americas, as one was born out of the transition from primitive communism into agricultural society and the other was born and died in the period of transition from serf society (feudalism) and capitalism. Slave society was a period of european historical development. Chattel slavery was one form of relatioms of production in the last quarter of the feudal era of european historical development. For one, the relation of land ownership bewtween slave society and feudalism is completely different, as slave society didn't even have the concept of land ownership as it had developed in feudalism. Most land in slave society was no one's land, worked and exploited by peasants for the fullfillment of their own needs, while in feudalism the peasant is extincted as a class to become the serf.
So it is said in the video that as the modes of production change with the resolution of class contradictions, the societal systems change with the concurrently changing mode of production. Why between the slave to serf to capitalist society does the same class struggle then appear in different forms? That assumption of resolution seemed to imply there would be more of a resolution of that dialectic between these systems. Based on this assumption, why does it then only disappear completely during the transition to Communism? If the video is construing it as that fundamental to society transition, it seems as if this pattern would be more acutely resolved between slave to serve to capitalist instead of essentially reforming each time. It seems like the video upends the idea of resolution between systems presented. On a slightly different note, outside of the validity of that assumption, only looking at the continued class dialectic presented between the slave to serf to capitalist systems, it then also seems like a leap to present this obvious dichotomy as being completely resolved in the bridge to communism from capitalism.
This is why I think socialism will never supersede capitalism until replicators erase the dependence of production on constant work. When manufacturing and recycling is done in personal rather than private or public devices, the landscape will fracture into autonomous and personally consented to groups and though money will disappear, it won’t resemble communists’ contemporarily minded designs either. It is only when no more combinations can be made within the last designs’ copyright and the full standard of living of each individual can be preserved without the global industrial system, that the world will willingly give up on capitalism.
Hey comrade been binging this series again and at 0:21 what are the books on your book cover I can identify all of them except the three next to forgotten revolution
"The Lost Revolution" (about the Official IRA and the Workers' Party of Ireland), "Another View of Stalin" , and "Irish-Soviet Diplomatic and Friendship Relations 1917-1991"
Could you do something on the difference between surplus value and variable capital? I re-read that part several times but they kinda just sound the same to me.
Sure. I'll try bring it into the upcoming videos on the Marxist law of value. But to answer quickly, Capital can be divided up into Constant Capital and Variable Capital. Constant Capital is that capital that's turned into Means of Production. Variable Capital is that capital which is turned into Labour Power. Constant Capital is not capable of producing value greater than itself. However, Variable Capital, through production, produces enough value to not only cover its own costs (such as the price paid for the worker's labour power), but also produces Surplus Value over and above that. That is to say, Variable Capital produces Surplus Value (though not only surplus value through surplus labour, but also covers its own value through necessary labour). Make sense? Surplus Value comes FROM Variable Capital - but that SURPLUS Value is only a portion of the value created by that Variable Capital. For example, 50% of the value created may just cover the money spent on purchasing the worker's labour power, and 50% may be surplus value (though these percentages will vary depending on the rate of exploitation, as explained in Chapter 9 on Capital volume 1). For more on this, I'd refer you to chapter 8 of Capital Volume 1, particularly this passage: "The means of production on the one hand, labour-power on the other, are merely the different modes of existence which the value of the original capital assumed when from being money it was transformed into the various factors of the labour-process. That part of capital then, which is represented by the means of production, by the raw material, auxiliary material and the instruments of labour does not, in the process of production, undergo any quantitative alteration of value. I therefore call it the constant part of capital, or, more shortly, constant capital. On the other hand, that part of capital, represented by labour-power, does, in the process of production, undergo an alteration of value. It both reproduces the equivalent of its own value, and also produces an excess, a surplus-value, which may itself vary, may be more or less according to circumstances. This part of capital is continually being transformed from a constant into a variable magnitude. I therefore call it the variable part of capital, or, shortly, variable capital. The same elements of capital which, from the point of view of the labour-process, present themselves respectively as the objective and subjective factors, as means of production and labour-power, present themselves, from the point of view of the process of creating surplus-value, as constant and variable capital. " (www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch08.htm)
so .... what class contradiction will exist in socialism/communism? ( and i am not referring to the remnants of slavery/feudalism/capitalism. ) what is the synthesis between the bourgeoisie / proletariat? what is the antithesis of THAT synthesis? dialectics sound like a frame to explain problem of the past and present. and the conclusion seems to be through dialectics we can break dialectics and be classless? so does dialectics end at class ... that certainly does not sound right. dialectics seems to demand that there is an antithesis to that position.... what is that antithesis?
Watch the next video on Contradiction to answer this: th-cam.com/video/3waMzGbd4l0/w-d-xo.html Ending class society doesn't end dialectics (just as innumerable contradictions existed prior to class society in primitive communism) it simply gets us to the next stage of development. Once class has been abolished, new contradictions will emerge. We have no idea of knowing what those new contradictions will be from where we are right now
Marx disagreed with the point that development can move backwards, but as an ML who sees the old east as actual socialism, you couldn't agree with him on that.
Random question: is anyone familiar with why Huey P Newton was so openly critical of historial materialism? I came here to this video after re-reading one of his speeches in 1970 at Boston University and he mentions his admiration for Marx’s dialectical materialism and used that as a basis to shape the party’s ideological positions, but he says a few times they are not HISTMATists. Im curious as to why someone like Huey who was such a big student of Marx felt so strongly that HISTMAT wasnt for him or his party. I cant seem to find out and it intrigues me so much. Thanks friends.
@@severed6s thanks for the reply. Im wondering if that may be the case myself. Him and Fred Hampton were huge on Dialectics so i figured Huey wouldve also supported Histmat. Ill have to look back in Revolutionary Suicide and see if he mentions anything about it
Hi I make this comment because I have some doubts about historical materialism and i would want some kind of answer. As far as I have understood dialectical materialism and historical materialism, it says that the material world is in constant change (in contrast as Paul said to metaphysics that state that there is no change) due to his contradictions deriving in a qualitative change, In social sciences an society this contradiction is class struggle, but communism tries to achieve a classless society so no contradiction I suppose, is Marxism saying that communism is the “end of history”?, no other system or contradiction can emmerge of it?. I also would want to know how is the role of historical materialism in other parts outside of Europe, like in India.
I'm not an ML so my ideas won't align with this video, but I'd still like to share my thoughts. I think historical materialism can in some ways be a useful lens of analysis (like viewing historical developments through material conditions and class struggles) but Marx's ideas on linear progress through stages (even in the way Paul explains in the video, with set-backs rather than a straight line of progress) is based more in dogma and eurocentric misconceptions, similar to liberal thinkers of his time and before like Rousseau. These thinkers saw indigenous tribes who enjoyed more freedom and communal living, as primitive people who were basically living fossils of what prehistoric society must've been like, instead of people with long histories and changes just as them. Modern historical, archaeological and anthropological insights (as I understand them as layman) show a much less linear path of history, with both egalitarian and hierarchical societies existing in prehistoric hunter-gatherer cultures (in some cultures their social structures even changed by season), and as well as many different kinds of civilizations all throughout history. Marx and Engels had some really great insights in a lot of areas, but were also a product of their own time, and limited by the knowledge that was available to them, and the biases that were culturally engrained. But I also have my biases and huge gaps in knowledge, so keep researching things that interest you :)
Communism is just the end of class society. I believe it was Lenin who said that we “do not know and cannot know” what will come next (in the development of human society).
I agree with the class struggle aspect but find the presupposition of society being oppositional as a constant to be a conflation of various cultures historically. Mutually beneficial trade offs being agreed upon is not oppressive . There are no solutions only trade offs. Jealousy is not a virtue. Being jealous on someone else’s behalf is certainly not either. Fact of the matter is identical twins will have different outcomes, assuming people from different backgrounds will achieve equity is flawed in the obvious fact that we are not equal to ourselves as years pass. We gain knowledge, become stronger, more feeble, etc. also thesis antithesis, synthesis doesn’t always apply. That’s why we have flat earthers . The blind spot being cognitive bias. Assuming constant opposition like god and the devil are very much akin to a religion .
Er. You forgot to mention "the common ruin of the contending classes" as a viable historical outcome of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. If the proletariat doesn't defeat the bourgeoisie and emerge from capitalism to build socialism (via ecologically sustainable planning) then the "common ruin" of the contending classes is going to happen. We've less than 100 years to get out from under the yoke of capitalism and into socialism - or humanity will experience a significant "dark" age as people scramble for control of a rapidly diminishing resource base.
There are a ton of specific metasocial narratives. I wonder if they are necessary to come to a conclusion: that cutting down enough trees for all the books people actually read is better than cutting down as many trees as you can, because you're skimming $2 from the sale of each book and daddy needs a yacht.
Greetings Paul, I wasn't able to find your contact information. I am help run a non profit organization called WORCS. We help develop worker cooperatives. I am looking to collaborate with content creators on the history of worker cooperatives.
I would have to disagree on the point about Ancient Greece. i think a conversation would go smoothly enough to get an Ancient Greece onto Netflix. describe things in ways that would align with their mythos. oracles, visions, ritual, attributing the stickier points to Hermes. if you would have said explain it to christians in Europe. I think THAT would be a problem. explaining Netflix to Europe would have gotten you killed for heresy.
Two questions 1. If D-M is correct then both socialism and communism contain within them the seeds of their own downfall. 2. If opposing forces must resolve eventually, there's nothing to say that the "wrong" force wont prevail - the bourgeoisie for example.
Neither of these are questions, really, but yes, and yes. 1 - As even the revolutionaries in 1917 russia predicted, a socialist society emerging in an imperialist world will have to fight both internal and external contradiction, in a road to drive out the remainder of capitalist society internally and fend off imperialist agression externaly. Especially internal contradiction in socialist society is the subject of constant development in socialist theory, with the highest stage of its development being maoism, with concepts of two line struggle, mass line and general anti-revisionism. 2 - First of, socialists don't believe in the right and wrong sides, or the "good and evil" sides. Only in the progress of society and the turning of the wheel of history. And yes, history can advance (revolution) or regress (reaction). That's one of the most basic concepts in socialist theory.
Briefly. If a governess sides with one side of the worker, owner equation more than the other. The result is extremist capitalism oppressing the working class, or if siding too much with the workers, they eliminate the fertilizer that feeds capitalism. The only balancing factor might be Christian religion. Which the first communist hated so much. Although Marx stole the communist idea straight from the New Testament. Although "Christian communism" practiced by clustered groups of Christians, has worked for centuries. Worked, but not studied to be learned from by the secular societies. They don't want an answer to the equation. They don't want their sin of self-exaltation or bloodline worship to be exposed. They just want domination. Convince me I'm wrong.
Confused by the methodology? Dialectical Materialism is explained here: th-cam.com/video/nZXaZHe901w/w-d-xo.html
Confused by the terminology? "Mode of Production", "Relations of Production", "Productive Forces", etc. are explained here: th-cam.com/video/qja-0gAhxiA/w-d-xo.html
Love your content man will you make a video about the history of islamic socialism in indonesia
What creates the conditions to create Capitalism?
@@Sentientmatter8I believe it was the contradiction and conflict between the new merchant (bourgeoisie) class and the old feudal nobility class
Another excellent video! I love this series so much.
Big daddy commie thought is here🙇🏻♂️
Hey i just watched one of your videos... dang breadtube rabbit holes. 😅✌
So do I comrade Chapman!
Thanks for all the great content! I'm honestly mind-blown at how misinformed I was about socialism and communism. This stuff is pretty eye opening.
Glad to help :)
Great video comrade! History is made by the people, not the actions of a few ✊🚩
My thoughts exactly
Only here to boost the algorithm
Commentary in support of comrade and his awesome fruitful labor! Greetings from Leningrad, Russia!
Mashallah daddy Paul has uploaded.
Don't get me wrong pal but is everyone your Daddy? U know cuz u called Hakim as daddy too.
😂😂
No offense
@@someesingh2827 yes daddy.
@@someesingh2827 That is just how he do :>
Lol you're here too
Yet another time you've explained something I've been thinking about in such a clear way that I think about it differently now. Excellent work you're doing.
Great video Paul! Studying the socialist experiments that have happened or are attempting to happen is important and you need a good understanding of the topics in your video to do it justice. Appreciate it! Moving forward for the people!
Gonna have to push the bell Icon. I've missed a few in this series and the production has gone way up.
The only stage I notice that was missing is the stage primitive communism, I think
Yep, that is the first stage of the material conception of history
Very well laid out and so important for comrades to understand. Chef's kiss!
wow on part 9 already? jeez feels like just yesterday u kicked this off
This video series is great but here is some constructive criticism:
- slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism are not only stages and as you said they don't move linearly. This is very eurocentric view. For example, economy of Inca Empire resembles those of feudal societies of Europe in regards to classes(they also had hereditary nobility and lower classes who did all the work) but their economy was planned and there was little to almost no trade/barter.
- contradictions of capitalism doesn't need to be resolved in the form of socialism nor is socialism and therefor communism certain to happen in the future. We can examine contradictions to "predict" what can come out of it but multiple outcomes are possible, for example we could all end up in system where capitalist relations exist but when all jobs cease to exist we may keep doing pointless bullshit jobs like in the episode of Black Mirror named Fifteen Million Merits.
Apart from that series is great so far.
You're right, since there are two contradicting classes in capitalism (generally speaking) there must be at least two possible syntheses (and probably more, because of variations of power between the two classes) as a conclusion. A most horrific scenario (apart from extinction through global warming, which is still the worst) is if the bourgeoisie is dominant in the conclusion, we might have a capitalist society where the wealthy trade among themselves and production is done by machines and AI. The proletariat will either be left to fend for themselves in a second economy based on scraps, be gotten rid of through genocide because they only pose a nuisance to the wealthy, or they might be pittied on and receive a limited form of UBI making them able to just survive.
Lmfao, definitely no to your second point. Capitalism-Imperialism will die at the hands of the proletariat. Class relations become simplified as the historical process marches forward, they haven’t historically become more complicated.
@@gilbertoaltamirano4543 I think we make a stop at fascism before the greater proletariat become class conscious and either capitalism either crashes epicly or the workers overthrow.
That's an interesting point of view
Great video comrade🚩🚩🚩
You got a new subscriber
Great stuff, keep it up!
This series is incredible. It's helping me understand socialism and communism SO MUCH.
Everyone I know just thinks of failed Russia or Venezuela when socialism or communism is brought up, but I'm learning those societies aren't even actual socialism or communism! Like he said in an earlier video, how can something be a "Communist State" when Communism is the ABOLITION or non-existence of the State! It makes no sense!
ah comrade paul and second thought uploaded in the same hour? based. here for the algorithm✌🏻🇮🇪🇵🇸🚩🏴
Hey! This is a short and easily digestible video. Good job Paul and thank you.
Great explainer but my favorite explanation of the subject remains Halim Alrah's summary of the communist manifesto. Not really a fair comparison though, since his video is twice as long.
True. That's a great video. Wish Halim uploaded more often
okay, so, this is probably not a very '101' question, but I'm a bit confused about this: what contradiction exactly was resolved by the transition from ancient slave societies to feudalism?
it seems to me that serfdom isn't all that different from slavery in the classical world-sure, it's legally different in most cases and the primary feature was of being tied to the land.
I get that each stage will contain remnants of previous stages, but I don't see how those are different, or how a contradiction was resolved in the transition from one to the other. rather, it seems like the administrative state of the Roman empire collapsed and was replaced by superficially different monarchs of smaller regions-in a way that's culturally and aesthetically different from the classical world and before, but not substantively different.
what am I missing?
You’re not missing anything. What you are smelling is a Blanket Statement that is obviously false.
Not everything is class conflict. Colonialism and Transatlantic Slavery was possible because of Caravels, not some notion of class conflict.
Its just a blanket statement that scaffolds their ideology.
For example. Marxists will conflate all exploited people without meaningful differentiation. A wage laborer and a slave are not of the same “class”. One is not being exposed to extreme physical violence and deprivation.
Marxists conflate in order to justify their warlike ideology.
@@ludlowaloysius you are confusing "slave society" and colonialism. Slavery in slave society (that is, ancient greece, rome and egypt, for example) is very different from chattel slavery in the americas, as one was born out of the transition from primitive communism into agricultural society and the other was born and died in the period of transition from serf society (feudalism) and capitalism.
Slave society was a period of european historical development. Chattel slavery was one form of relatioms of production in the last quarter of the feudal era of european historical development. For one, the relation of land ownership bewtween slave society and feudalism is completely different, as slave society didn't even have the concept of land ownership as it had developed in feudalism. Most land in slave society was no one's land, worked and exploited by peasants for the fullfillment of their own needs, while in feudalism the peasant is extincted as a class to become the serf.
An excellent video, very clear and easy to digest. Thank you for your great work!
Good video, comrade. Keep it up, Paul.
Phenomenal video!
The 18th grimoire of louis bonaparte.
If you are looking for quotes on marx's thoughts about history then that book is a gold mine.
Excellent! This series is awesome!
Very clear and concise; great explanation!
Thanks Paul, this series is great!
you have a really awesome way of explaining things, by far the best video on the topic i have found so far, cheers
Cheers Laura, I appreciate that. Glad you're finding these videos useful
Such a great video, Paul! Love this.
For the algorithm gods
So it is said in the video that as the modes of production change with the resolution of class contradictions, the societal systems change with the concurrently changing mode of production. Why between the slave to serf to capitalist society does the same class struggle then appear in different forms? That assumption of resolution seemed to imply there would be more of a resolution of that dialectic between these systems. Based on this assumption, why does it then only disappear completely during the transition to Communism? If the video is construing it as that fundamental to society transition, it seems as if this pattern would be more acutely resolved between slave to serve to capitalist instead of essentially reforming each time. It seems like the video upends the idea of resolution between systems presented. On a slightly different note, outside of the validity of that assumption, only looking at the continued class dialectic presented between the slave to serf to capitalist systems, it then also seems like a leap to present this obvious dichotomy as being completely resolved in the bridge to communism from capitalism.
Love this series. Keep the great work on 👍
Question, is there a youtube channel or set of resources that goes into history and historical events from a Marxist perspective?
This is why I think socialism will never supersede capitalism until replicators erase the dependence of production on constant work. When manufacturing and recycling is done in personal rather than private or public devices, the landscape will fracture into autonomous and personally consented to groups and though money will disappear, it won’t resemble communists’ contemporarily minded designs either. It is only when no more combinations can be made within the last designs’ copyright and the full standard of living of each individual can be preserved without the global industrial system, that the world will willingly give up on capitalism.
Hey comrade been binging this series again and at 0:21 what are the books on your book cover I can identify all of them except the three next to forgotten revolution
"The Lost Revolution" (about the Official IRA and the Workers' Party of Ireland), "Another View of Stalin" , and "Irish-Soviet Diplomatic and Friendship Relations 1917-1991"
AMAZING video!
Activity for the algorithm.
4:50 important
Just watched the who series at once while liking every video, doing my part to give that extra algorithm boost.
Loving this series ❤️❤️ so much
Excellent as always
lets go PAUL!
Very nice videos! Do you know the Revolutionary Communist International (RCI) ?
Fantastic Video!
great stuff
Very good video comrade
Could you do something on the difference between surplus value and variable capital? I re-read that part several times but they kinda just sound the same to me.
Sure. I'll try bring it into the upcoming videos on the Marxist law of value. But to answer quickly, Capital can be divided up into Constant Capital and Variable Capital. Constant Capital is that capital that's turned into Means of Production. Variable Capital is that capital which is turned into Labour Power. Constant Capital is not capable of producing value greater than itself. However, Variable Capital, through production, produces enough value to not only cover its own costs (such as the price paid for the worker's labour power), but also produces Surplus Value over and above that.
That is to say, Variable Capital produces Surplus Value (though not only surplus value through surplus labour, but also covers its own value through necessary labour).
Make sense? Surplus Value comes FROM Variable Capital - but that SURPLUS Value is only a portion of the value created by that Variable Capital. For example, 50% of the value created may just cover the money spent on purchasing the worker's labour power, and 50% may be surplus value (though these percentages will vary depending on the rate of exploitation, as explained in Chapter 9 on Capital volume 1).
For more on this, I'd refer you to chapter 8 of Capital Volume 1, particularly this passage: "The means of production on the one hand, labour-power on the other, are merely the different modes of existence which the value of the original capital assumed when from being money it was transformed into the various factors of the labour-process. That part of capital then, which is represented by the means of production, by the raw material, auxiliary material and the instruments of labour does not, in the process of production, undergo any quantitative alteration of value. I therefore call it the constant part of capital, or, more shortly, constant capital.
On the other hand, that part of capital, represented by labour-power, does, in the process of production, undergo an alteration of value. It both reproduces the equivalent of its own value, and also produces an excess, a surplus-value, which may itself vary, may be more or less according to circumstances. This part of capital is continually being transformed from a constant into a variable magnitude. I therefore call it the variable part of capital, or, shortly, variable capital. The same elements of capital which, from the point of view of the labour-process, present themselves respectively as the objective and subjective factors, as means of production and labour-power, present themselves, from the point of view of the process of creating surplus-value, as constant and variable capital. " (www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch08.htm)
A banger, as usual.
so .... what class contradiction will exist in socialism/communism? ( and i am not referring to the remnants of slavery/feudalism/capitalism. ) what is the synthesis between the bourgeoisie / proletariat? what is the antithesis of THAT synthesis?
dialectics sound like a frame to explain problem of the past and present. and the conclusion seems to be through dialectics we can break dialectics and be classless? so does dialectics end at class ... that certainly does not sound right. dialectics seems to demand that there is an antithesis to that position.... what is that antithesis?
Watch the next video on Contradiction to answer this: th-cam.com/video/3waMzGbd4l0/w-d-xo.html
Ending class society doesn't end dialectics (just as innumerable contradictions existed prior to class society in primitive communism) it simply gets us to the next stage of development. Once class has been abolished, new contradictions will emerge. We have no idea of knowing what those new contradictions will be from where we are right now
@@Marxism_Today Thank you for the response. Yup, working through the playlist.
thank you Marxist Jackspeticeye
algorithm
Thank you
Good stuff!
Marx disagreed with the point that development can move backwards, but as an ML who sees the old east as actual socialism, you couldn't agree with him on that.
F Great man theory
I didn't understand anything; I'll get back to this a couple of months.
just to boost the algo, thanks for your work
Can you talk about the ecp?
Emergency Contraceptive Pill or Extra Cheese Powder?
@@Marxism_Today I’m sorry I’m very new to leftism I’m just learning
@@Marxism_Today The ecnomic calculation problem
Well written
This is concise! Thank You!
Random question: is anyone familiar with why Huey P Newton was so openly critical of historial materialism? I came here to this video after re-reading one of his speeches in 1970 at Boston University and he mentions his admiration for Marx’s dialectical materialism and used that as a basis to shape the party’s ideological positions, but he says a few times they are not HISTMATists. Im curious as to why someone like Huey who was such a big student of Marx felt so strongly that HISTMAT wasnt for him or his party. I cant seem to find out and it intrigues me so much. Thanks friends.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think he and many others thought that histmat had too much emphasis on class struggle.
@@severed6s thanks for the reply. Im wondering if that may be the case myself. Him and Fred Hampton were huge on Dialectics so i figured Huey wouldve also supported Histmat. Ill have to look back in Revolutionary Suicide and see if he mentions anything about it
Hi I make this comment because I have some doubts about historical materialism and i would want some kind of answer.
As far as I have understood dialectical materialism and historical materialism, it says that the material world is in constant change (in contrast as Paul said to metaphysics that state that there is no change) due to his contradictions deriving in a qualitative change, In social sciences an society this contradiction is class struggle, but communism tries to achieve a classless society so no contradiction I suppose, is Marxism saying that communism is the “end of history”?, no other system or contradiction can emmerge of it?.
I also would want to know how is the role of historical materialism in other parts outside of Europe, like in India.
I'm not an ML so my ideas won't align with this video, but I'd still like to share my thoughts. I think historical materialism can in some ways be a useful lens of analysis (like viewing historical developments through material conditions and class struggles) but Marx's ideas on linear progress through stages (even in the way Paul explains in the video, with set-backs rather than a straight line of progress) is based more in dogma and eurocentric misconceptions, similar to liberal thinkers of his time and before like Rousseau. These thinkers saw indigenous tribes who enjoyed more freedom and communal living, as primitive people who were basically living fossils of what prehistoric society must've been like, instead of people with long histories and changes just as them.
Modern historical, archaeological and anthropological insights (as I understand them as layman) show a much less linear path of history, with both egalitarian and hierarchical societies existing in prehistoric hunter-gatherer cultures (in some cultures their social structures even changed by season), and as well as many different kinds of civilizations all throughout history.
Marx and Engels had some really great insights in a lot of areas, but were also a product of their own time, and limited by the knowledge that was available to them, and the biases that were culturally engrained.
But I also have my biases and huge gaps in knowledge, so keep researching things that interest you :)
Communism is just the end of class society. I believe it was Lenin who said that we “do not know and cannot know” what will come next (in the development of human society).
But I could also be wrong about this.
@@KarlSnarkscould you send me some sources of these egalitarian and structural societies? I'd like to do some of that research
I agree with the class struggle aspect but find the presupposition of society being oppositional as a constant to be a conflation of various cultures historically. Mutually beneficial trade offs being agreed upon is not oppressive . There are no solutions only trade offs. Jealousy is not a virtue. Being jealous on someone else’s behalf is certainly not either. Fact of the matter is identical twins will have different outcomes, assuming people from different backgrounds will achieve equity is flawed in the obvious fact that we are not equal to ourselves as years pass. We gain knowledge, become stronger, more feeble, etc. also thesis antithesis, synthesis doesn’t always apply. That’s why we have flat earthers . The blind spot being cognitive bias. Assuming constant opposition like god and the devil are very much akin to a religion .
Historical materialism? More like basedtorical chaderialism.
( I don't have anything funny to say and am leaving a comment for the algorithm)
Pog
Er. You forgot to mention "the common ruin of the contending classes" as a viable historical outcome of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. If the proletariat doesn't defeat the bourgeoisie and emerge from capitalism to build socialism (via ecologically sustainable planning) then the "common ruin" of the contending classes is going to happen. We've less than 100 years to get out from under the yoke of capitalism and into socialism - or humanity will experience a significant "dark" age as people scramble for control of a rapidly diminishing resource base.
The first part sounds like fascism
There are a ton of specific metasocial narratives. I wonder if they are necessary to come to a conclusion: that cutting down enough trees for all the books people actually read is better than cutting down as many trees as you can, because you're skimming $2 from the sale of each book and daddy needs a yacht.
Greetings Paul, I wasn't able to find your contact information. I am help run a non profit organization called WORCS. We help develop worker cooperatives. I am looking to collaborate with content creators on the history of worker cooperatives.
a great one
5:33 History is not linear according to communists. That's way the defeat of 20th century communism and the triumph of Capitalism is not a problem.
The Working Class needs there on political partie and this is it !
FEED THE ALGORITHM.
I would have to disagree on the point about Ancient Greece. i think a conversation would go smoothly enough to get an Ancient Greece onto Netflix. describe things in ways that would align with their mythos. oracles, visions, ritual, attributing the stickier points to Hermes. if you would have said explain it to christians in Europe. I think THAT would be a problem. explaining Netflix to Europe would have gotten you killed for heresy.
Well Marx did not invented slavery. The European did in the 1500 and was abolished by Lincoln. Hmmm
Top!
But the triangular slave trade existed in the capitalist era
And semi-feudal relations exist under many predominantly capitalist societies today as well. What of it?
Wait why does yugopnik subscribe to the patreon
Historical materialism is not a science!! It is IDEOLOGY.
Cope and seethe
@@Marxism_Today ...Good luck with that prophesied revolution. Should be coming any day now! Right after Jesus comes back 🙃
💯
Step one is always be unemployed and not trying to find a job.
Most of the Marxists are like that 😂😂
Bump
Paksns
Two questions
1. If D-M is correct then both socialism and communism contain within them the seeds of their own downfall.
2. If opposing forces must resolve eventually, there's nothing to say that the "wrong" force wont prevail - the bourgeoisie for example.
Neither of these are questions, really, but yes, and yes.
1 - As even the revolutionaries in 1917 russia predicted, a socialist society emerging in an imperialist world will have to fight both internal and external contradiction, in a road to drive out the remainder of capitalist society internally and fend off imperialist agression externaly. Especially internal contradiction in socialist society is the subject of constant development in socialist theory, with the highest stage of its development being maoism, with concepts of two line struggle, mass line and general anti-revisionism.
2 - First of, socialists don't believe in the right and wrong sides, or the "good and evil" sides. Only in the progress of society and the turning of the wheel of history. And yes, history can advance (revolution) or regress (reaction). That's one of the most basic concepts in socialist theory.
Briefly. If a governess sides with one side of the worker, owner equation more than the other. The result is extremist capitalism oppressing the working class, or if siding too much with the workers, they eliminate the fertilizer that feeds capitalism. The only balancing factor might be Christian religion. Which the first communist hated so much. Although Marx stole the communist idea straight from the New Testament. Although "Christian communism" practiced by clustered groups of Christians, has worked for centuries. Worked, but not studied to be learned from by the secular societies. They don't want an answer to the equation. They don't want their sin of self-exaltation or bloodline worship to be exposed. They just want domination. Convince me I'm wrong.
Better dead than red.
Don't threaten us with a good time
@@Marxism_Today idk i was just saying that to be edgy LMAO cuz my political opinions depend on who i wanna piss off but im not in the mood rn
thank you