Tony Benn, Joseph Buttigieg and Ralph Miliband were also examples of great socialists with opportunist neoliberal sons (respectively Hilary, Pete and Ralph & David).
She's trying to win an election lmao. Did you know Marxism in the US is less favourable than JD Vance himself. Maybe she can change the system from inside. Let her do the work then decide if she's a disappointment or not. Also parental educational qualifications don't need to be transferred to a child for the child to be deemed worthy lmao.
I didnt even realize Donald Harris had such great contributions to economics. it's so sad his daughter had become a neoliberal genocider conducting a horrific holocaust causing unimaginable suffering globally. i couldnt imagine the shame and pain that must bring him. like holy fuck what went wrong.
I think I read Kamala was mostly raised by her mother after her parents divorce. If my father was a contributor to communism I'd learn everything about him. Wonder why she knew about these concepts and chose to become a sold out public servant? Shame.
One: Kamala is not a neoliberal, she's a social democrat. Big difference. Two: she's not guilty of genocide. Benjamin Netanyahu is guilty of genocide. The US is guilty of complicity which is not the same. It's wrong to blame the US for this conflict because the conflict stretches back long before US involvement. You have to go back to at least WW1 with the Sykes Picot agreement. Your comment comes off as disingenuous and has a tankie energy to it.
I learned Marxist (Marxian?) History in school. The curriculum was very much based on Eric Hobsbawn's work. All that during the final years of the 1964 military regime in Brazil. Why did they let that happen? Because they are not dumb and they are aware of what being a Marxist is and how it differs from being a marxist. Donald Harris' first published papers was done under the Brazilian state funded Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA) and was a critique of Celso Furtado's work. Thanks for the video!
Regarding the theories of economic growth presented in this video, my understanding is this: The expanded reproduction of capitalism, as in any historical society, is conditioned by the growth of the working population. On this basis, the annual reproduction of commodities uniformly expands with the conversion of surplus value into capital, provided that the composition of constant capital does not grow with it. However, the actual process of capitalist accumulation aims to overcome all contingencies to valorization, for otherwise capital could not accomplish its end of valorization and organise an entire historical society on the basis of value. To overcome this restriction, capital introduces innovations in the technical method of production, thereby advancing the productive powers of the economy. In adopting of a new technical method, the individual capitalist is motivated by the pursuit of an extra surplus value. Even though the extra surplus value diminishes as the new method of production becomes widely adopted and standardized, the productive powers of the economy continue to expand. Technical progress contributes to the reduction of the necessary labor-time and the production of relative surplus value is enhanced. But the pursuit of extra surplus value is only a possibility for the individual capitalist and cannot be actualized under every circumstance. Extra surplus value is only vigorously pursued in the phase of depression, when the severity of capitalist competition is especially pronounced (due to the proliferation of fixed capital embodying the value of a technical method of production). Market competition has a general tendency to eliminate surpluses / losses in the long run because the technical efficiency across industries are standardized. The land market is an exception to this general tendency because land is an inelastic means of production, so the surplus profits that remain are converted into rent. The formation of rental incomes from landed property implies the commodification of land. However, for land to even be a commodity, there must exist a method of determining its price. If land is to be purchased as a commodity, the money needed to pay the price must come from idle money that has yet to be converted into capital. Therefore money must itself be converted into a commodity and floated as loans in a money market to earn interest instead of average profit. But this does not quite function as a method for pricing land since the price paid for its use is not equal to its principal money value. Moreover, idle funds take the form of loan-capital only temporarily, pending their eventual conversion into industrial capital that earns average profit instead of interest. So if the agricultural capitalist had to purchase his own land, he must have fixed the purchase price of the land permanently, which earns him only interest in the form of rent. Therefore, in order to justify the capitalist purchase of land as an advance of money as capital, it is necessary that capital itself must be regarded as an interest-bearing asset, the price of which is calculated by capitalisation. This requires the conversion of capital itself into a commodity. It is with the generation of interest-bearing capital that the commodity-economic logic of capital has reached its logical conclusion. With the conception of a capital as self-expanding asset, of money that generates money, the conception all production relations hitherto of capitalist society begin to evaporate without a trace. Protective tariffs give finance cartels a home base safe from foreign competition. But states which succeed in taming interest-bearing capital become increasingly militarized and culminates into a imperialist force dividing the world into its spheres of influence. The labor process is rapidly socialized as workers are combined en masse by large multinational corporations, which in turn fuels the class struggle which concretely takes the shape of a trade union and socialist movements. To appease class struggles and achieve internal peace, however, bourgeois states had to take on the form of proto-welfare state, directly intervening into the management of the national economy in order to pacify the worker’s movement and ensuring the supremacy of the capitalist class. But at this point the power of capital is already increasingly ennervated; the markets for labor, land and money cease to be self-regulating and thereby implies the real possibility of an economic system managed by and for the workers themselves. Here we can think of social ownership manifesting as joint-ownership which scales across three levels: the joint-ownership of the cooperative by its workers, the joint-ownership of land by community members, and the joint-ownership of industry by its communities. The cooperative hires labor from its community to produce use-values that can only be sold or purchased by other members of the community, so the incentive to work is directly social and for the satisfaction of local needs. The benefits and burdens of production are shared, so free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. A portion of the surplus earned by each cooperatives is paid to the community in the form of rent, generating a property income that can be spent on further socializing services (public transit, hospitals, schools, etc.) as well as importing goods from other communities. This in turn implies that the production of capital goods upon which the whole of society depends be owned by the communities that it services.
Profit rates have not gone down. You are wrong. The amount of money capitalists gets through dividends did go down, wich is probably good for leftists. But the profit rates have remained constant for the most part.
Thank You!!!! Why isn't this information being put on blast in the media like on Twitter from Twitter to you know the news my emails I want. This is what I want to hear about Kamala Harris
For the TRPF, it has been verified by the likes of Paul Cockshott but the rest are interesting still. Maybe Paul Cockshott is worth a video for his works.
This has been the greatest let down in levels of political desirability from one generation of a family to another involving a president (VPs and candidates included) since the jump from Henry Wallace to George Wallace. Not even Bush Senior to his children, or RFK Jr to the Kennedy name can compare, be it on how much I agree with them or actual competency/qualifications.
Hello from Russia. I have a question for Western Marxists. In the East, it is generally believed that the Frankfurt school is idealism and has nothing to do with Marxism. Movements such as LGBT, BLM, are engaged in superstructure. Whereas Marxism itself speaks of a basis. Can anyone explain why the United States and Europe really consider the Frankfurt School to be a new step in Marxism? I would be grateful if you could provide links to some material on this issue. Or tell me which author is worth watching, reading.
The Frankfurt school and "so-called" Postmodernism is not regarded by Marxists to be a new step in Marxism. You can hear such opinions by either social democrats or "radical liberals" / "progressives" etc. The existence of non-binary people is not up to debate, it is observable reality both historically and in our societies today. The struggle against racism and against sexism has been an arena in which Marxists contributed greatly since the formation of Marxism as an ideological framework, as a tool for liberation via revolution. When it comes to intersectionality and the struggle against patriarchy and white supremacy there are many books one can look into an research, and I hope (since I can't think many on the top of my head) other will elaborate more on this field. I could only recommend Fanon's works and the work done in the GDR regarding "LGBT+ issues". However, if one wants to actually equip themselves with the tools necessary to understand these issues in their core needs to focus on understanding dialectical materialism (and avoid vulgar and mechanistic assertions). Saying things like: "movements engaged in superstructure" sounds similar to those that don't support anticolonial struggles because they are "bourgeois". Race essentialism, vulgar materialist understandings of gender etc. are far better investigated when you research how they came to be and what are the characteristics of their development. For instance, studying colonialism helps someone understand white supremancy far better than only looking at the systemic injustice of today
Gabriel Rockhill on youtube likes to critique the Frankfurt school 24/7, you might like that. You aren't scared of the LGBTQ+ right? You are only right that these movements really can't do anything for themselves. BLM has fallen to corruption scanadals, and the LGBTQ movement here is all identity politics and has nothing to do with organizing with other oppressed intersectionalities against their oppressors. Some may be socialists, but a majority are still liberals/democrats that have never read a book on Marxism. We can see how the LGBTQ+ movement is even co-opted by neoliberals. On pride month, corporations change their logos to reflect the LGBTQ, but this is only identity and has nothing to do with all oppressed peoples. The second Pride month is over, these same corporations go back to normal, still oppressing the LGBTQ and the rest of the world. Would be nice to see a real group pop up again like the Black Panther Party. Still, the Frankfurt school has some nice writings. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water too.
You should listen to Gabriel Rockhill lectures to understand why and how the Frankfurt school and "compatible" Left came to be. His lectures are here on TH-cam.
Yeah, but that consistently increased supply may result in consistently decreased demand, and thus decreased value and spending of more and more things. I think that’s the question
@@candorsspot2775 I am certain that you’re being obtuse due to a presumption you understand what he’s talking about due to your trust in familiar common sense.
@@alephmale3171 You're right. Donald has no common sense. All of this BS has been tried in s hole countries and failed. Not a single thing Marx said has been proven true.
my guess is that she's probably the only one who could unify the majority of the liberal factions and is trying to mimick a blue trump on stage/in media
He’s half black, and his daughter is half Indian which makes her only a quarter black. In no other country on Earth does that equal to being black. She’s only a quarter.
@@shabazz360 you’re ridiculous. The nazis killed people with one Jewish grandparent, so you’re just plain wrong about it only being an American phenomenon. You’re completely butchering the concept of multi-racial people and it’s making you look extremely stupid. At the end of the day, you’re what other people perceive you as. A black-looking person is going to be considered black, irrespective of whether one or both of their parents are black, because other people don’t see a hologram of your family tree when they look at you. Kamala Harris is a black-Indian woman, it’s really not that hard to wrap your head around. Genealogically she is also white, but I doubt anyone ever perceived her as such.
@@shabazz360 race doesn't work like that. It's a cultural thing, not a purely genetic thing (genes don't split 50:50 anyway). You can be born a mexican, raised a mexican, speak Mexican Spanish and feel mexican, only to do a DNA test and learn you're not; does that make you any less mexican? Heck the royal family of the UK are German genetically, but noone disputes them being British.
@ConsumerOfCringe "Mexican", or hispanic in general, isn't a race. You can be white, black, indigenous, or any mixture of these, and be considered Mexican, same with any Central/South American country.
The video is not for everyday Americans that do not have economy education background. The short version is that Harris father was/is a Marxist and he teach Marxist ideologies and policies in our universities.
@@CristofahI read an article that said he, indeed, try. In jamaica he hoped his children would of see how life really is, to make them aware of social issues. Sadly, it did not work.
*That’s far too reductive* *A Growth Inducement Strategy for Jamaica in the Short and Medium Term Donald Harris (2012) I'm to gonna show you the bullet points under a section called Guiding Principles* “Unleash entrepreneurial dynamism by unlocking latent wealth tied up in idle assets. Infrastructure investments as catalyst for job creation through strengthening resiliency of the built in natural environment. Build an innovative and competitive modern economy of big and small firms by strengthening business networks and removing supply side constraints. Modernize and improve the efficiency of government, social inclusion through community renewal, expanded self agency and equity and proactive partnership between government and private sector.”
What is with this glut of maxist BS recently? Did all the millennial channels I blocked grow up, and now the Gen Z idiots need time to figure out this is dumb? Whatever.
@@nolo5220 1. LTV does not account for the Diamond-Water Paradox 2. Say's Law (supply creates its own demand) has been accepted by virtually all respected economists, including (Post/Neo)Marxian ones. This means that Marx's schema of exploitation of labor is incoherent, as workers cannot produce "more" or "less" than business owners 3. Marx's understanding of labor as an economic resource was restricted to the parameters of the industrial economy; developed economies today are largely service-based and rely on the production of capital more than labor
@@dansonoflightning2277 You clearly have not read Marx. The Paradox of value is addressed. Value ≠ Price. Say's law has been thoroughly disproven by and since Keynes, no clue what you're talking about there. Your third point changes nothing at all lol, you are merely ignoring the fact that industry has just been moved to other parts of the globe.
@@nolo5220 1. That's convenient. All failures to calculate value within a Marxian economic framework can be blamed on discrepancies between value and price. I fail to see how any theory of value that divorces value from price is falsifiable. 2. You're implying that Keynes is more mainstream than the neoclassical school and that post-Keynesian economic theorists (GLS Shackle, Joan Robinson) did not revise Keynes' original argument to account for Say's Law and other ideas borrowed from mainstream economics. Both are false. 3. Worker exploitation in an industrial economy emerged because workers had low control over their options for employment and no workers' rights. Most (really, I'd argue, all legal) labor today is based on employment contracts that are mutually consented to and are therefore voluntary.
SHLM & HaB (peace & love). The Name of the Creator is Hayah Asher Hayah, as what He told Moshah (Exodus 3:14), preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is a curse to the G-o-d name (Isaiah 65:11-12), preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures. All followers of the Messiah are to do the 7 appointed times (Leviticus 23), but no more animal sacrifices, following the Crucifixion of the Messiah. We are now of the order of MLK TSDQ (King, righteous), to Whom ABRaHM tithed. Ask the Messiah to be your personal Savior. He said to him, I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6). ...for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Hayah (Romans 3:23). The wages for sin is death but the gift of ALaHYM is Everlasting Life through Messiah Yahushgh our Master (Romans 6:23). That if you confess with your mouth the Master Yahushgh and believe in your heart that ALaHYM raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved (Romans 10:9). He Himself is an Atoning Offering for our sins, and not for ours only but also for all the world (1 John 2:2).
Here's a conundrum for you. It's possible for workers to own the means of production under capitalism, for example, a carpenter owns his tools, a taxi driver might own his taxi, a dressmaker owns her sewing machine, etc. Under a Marxist model this would not be allowed, as that person would be considered a capitalist, the means of production must be owned by everybody. Private ownership of so much as a pencil would be banned as that person could write stories and make money from it. Under communism everything that exists in society must be owned by the state and distributed according to state needs. You see the problem here? Actual Marxism is possible under capitalism but not communism. Some clever clogs explain that for me.
Why would anyone ever want to talk to you. You sound annoying and pretentious. Maybe get a personality (and some bitches) and stop focusing so much on economics.
"Private ownership of so much as a pencil would be banned" It's 2024 and ancaps have yet to graduate from masturbating to loli and freebasing Milton Friedman lectures. FFS, private property doesn't mean what you think it does, lackwit.
A worker owning their own means of production is not capitalism and doesn’t make them a capitalist. However, this sort of relation doesn’t exist nearly as much as you’d think in a capitalist society. Taxi drivers work for a taxi company who exploits them, authors sell their works to a publisher, etc. There are very few businesses where you can create your own value from scratch and actually compete with capitalist corporations. Groups of people with various skills are necessary to coordinate any kind of complex production, and eliminating the extractive class who extracts profits from the work of others is the actual goal of Marxists. Hope that clears it up.
1. Only big corporations can produce the abundance needed for society, not small business owners running taxis and doing handyman work. 2. Marxists are not concerned with treating small business owners the same as the more threatening corporations. 3. You've made the mistake of confusing "private property" with "personal property". No, a pencil is not private property... Unless you are making other people use that pencil to write stuff for you to sell, a ridiculous task. In this case, the private property isnt the pencil, but the press itself. 4. No, resources are not "for the state", it's for the people. To provide jobs and achieve the 0 unemployment that only exists in socialism. To pay for social social services, and to build the military to protect the peoples way of life be being eroded by a take over and capitalist order (look at modern Russia vs Soviet Union vs Old Russia). 5. I would suggest listening to the free TH-cam audiobooks "wage labor and capital" by Karl Marx as well as "principles of communism" by Frederick Engles. In the meantime, the video on historical materialism by the channel "Halim Alrah".
There is a distinction between personal and private property. A carpenter owning a personal workshop can hardly be compared to a capitalist owning a saw mill.
![Global Capitalism: A Marxist Critique of Capitalism for 2024 [May 2024]](/img/n.gif)
Thesis: Donald Trump
Antithesis: Kamala Harris
Synthesis: Donald Harris
Donald J. Harris.
@@Pine_Gap_Island "with our powers combined..."
That's what my brain thought too, I was so confused and had no idea what to expect going into this. I thought it would be a comedy.
Synopsis ( “ stop & frisk “ )
Wonderful!
This channel stumbling on my notifications makes me happy.
What a disappointment his daughter turned out to be lmao
Tony Benn, Joseph Buttigieg and Ralph Miliband were also examples of great socialists with opportunist neoliberal sons (respectively Hilary, Pete and Ralph & David).
She's trying to win an election lmao.
Did you know Marxism in the US is less favourable than JD Vance himself.
Maybe she can change the system from inside. Let her do the work then decide if she's a disappointment or not.
Also parental educational qualifications don't need to be transferred to a child for the child to be deemed worthy lmao.
*insert Kamala' s laugh*😂
Because he didn't raise her
@@partimentieveryday TH-cam deleted my comment but somehow I still keep getting these inconsiderate comments about Kamala.
Y'all are trash. That's all
I didnt even realize Donald Harris had such great contributions to economics. it's so sad his daughter had become a neoliberal genocider conducting a horrific holocaust causing unimaginable suffering globally. i couldnt imagine the shame and pain that must bring him. like holy fuck what went wrong.
I think I read Kamala was mostly raised by her mother after her parents divorce. If my father was a contributor to communism I'd learn everything about him. Wonder why she knew about these concepts and chose to become a sold out public servant? Shame.
Palestine will be free!
Because Kamala didn't grow up with him
One: Kamala is not a neoliberal, she's a social democrat. Big difference. Two: she's not guilty of genocide. Benjamin Netanyahu is guilty of genocide. The US is guilty of complicity which is not the same. It's wrong to blame the US for this conflict because the conflict stretches back long before US involvement. You have to go back to at least WW1 with the Sykes Picot agreement. Your comment comes off as disingenuous and has a tankie energy to it.
@@alexanderredhorse1297 This comment seems disingenuous and has a tankie energy to it.
I love the fact that Kamalas dads name is Donald
Not just Donald but Donald J.
Unimaginably rare Harris W
I think it’s very important to mention Marx’s Gründrisse here. He did change his mind on the dialectic of use and exchange value.
Nobody's gonna read that
How so?
Can you explain that please
I learned Marxist (Marxian?) History in school. The curriculum was very much based on Eric Hobsbawn's work. All that during the final years of the 1964 military regime in Brazil. Why did they let that happen? Because they are not dumb and they are aware of what being a Marxist is and how it differs from being a marxist.
Donald Harris' first published papers was done under the Brazilian state funded Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA) and was a critique of Celso Furtado's work.
Thanks for the video!
Never heard of him before now. Very cool!
Welcome back comrade !
Kamala Harris is a capitalist, a real capitalist.
Thanks for coming back. You’re so good
We are so back ❤
profit rate has fallen. look at dividend payment over time in the stock market, average was above 3% for a long time. Now it's closer to 1.5%
That's a pretty specific variable that likely fails to capture a much larger set of points that verify the rate of profit.
Regarding the theories of economic growth presented in this video, my understanding is this:
The expanded reproduction of capitalism, as in any historical society, is conditioned by the growth of the working population. On this basis, the annual reproduction of commodities uniformly expands with the conversion of surplus value into capital, provided that the composition of constant capital does not grow with it. However, the actual process of capitalist accumulation aims to overcome all contingencies to valorization, for otherwise capital could not accomplish its end of valorization and organise an entire historical society on the basis of value. To overcome this restriction, capital introduces innovations in the technical method of production, thereby advancing the productive powers of the economy. In adopting of a new technical method, the individual capitalist is motivated by the pursuit of an extra surplus value. Even though the extra surplus value diminishes as the new method of production becomes widely adopted and standardized, the productive powers of the economy continue to expand. Technical progress contributes to the reduction of the necessary labor-time and the production of relative surplus value is enhanced. But the pursuit of extra surplus value is only a possibility for the individual capitalist and cannot be actualized under every circumstance. Extra surplus value is only vigorously pursued in the phase of depression, when the severity of capitalist competition is especially pronounced (due to the proliferation of fixed capital embodying the value of a technical method of production). Market competition has a general tendency to eliminate surpluses / losses in the long run because the technical efficiency across industries are standardized. The land market is an exception to this general tendency because land is an inelastic means of production, so the surplus profits that remain are converted into rent.
The formation of rental incomes from landed property implies the commodification of land. However, for land to even be a commodity, there must exist a method of determining its price. If land is to be purchased as a commodity, the money needed to pay the price must come from idle money that has yet to be converted into capital. Therefore money must itself be converted into a commodity and floated as loans in a money market to earn interest instead of average profit. But this does not quite function as a method for pricing land since the price paid for its use is not equal to its principal money value. Moreover, idle funds take the form of loan-capital only temporarily, pending their eventual conversion into industrial capital that earns average profit instead of interest. So if the agricultural capitalist had to purchase his own land, he must have fixed the purchase price of the land permanently, which earns him only interest in the form of rent. Therefore, in order to justify the capitalist purchase of land as an advance of money as capital, it is necessary that capital itself must be regarded as an interest-bearing asset, the price of which is calculated by capitalisation. This requires the conversion of capital itself into a commodity.
It is with the generation of interest-bearing capital that the commodity-economic logic of capital has reached its logical conclusion. With the conception of a capital as self-expanding asset, of money that generates money, the conception all production relations hitherto of capitalist society begin to evaporate without a trace. Protective tariffs give finance cartels a home base safe from foreign competition. But states which succeed in taming interest-bearing capital become increasingly militarized and culminates into a imperialist force dividing the world into its spheres of influence. The labor process is rapidly socialized as workers are combined en masse by large multinational corporations, which in turn fuels the class struggle which concretely takes the shape of a trade union and socialist movements. To appease class struggles and achieve internal peace, however, bourgeois states had to take on the form of proto-welfare state, directly intervening into the management of the national economy in order to pacify the worker’s movement and ensuring the supremacy of the capitalist class. But at this point the power of capital is already increasingly ennervated; the markets for labor, land and money cease to be self-regulating and thereby implies the real possibility of an economic system managed by and for the workers themselves. Here we can think of social ownership manifesting as joint-ownership which scales across three levels: the joint-ownership of the cooperative by its workers, the joint-ownership of land by community members, and the joint-ownership of industry by its communities. The cooperative hires labor from its community to produce use-values that can only be sold or purchased by other members of the community, so the incentive to work is directly social and for the satisfaction of local needs. The benefits and burdens of production are shared, so free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. A portion of the surplus earned by each cooperatives is paid to the community in the form of rent, generating a property income that can be spent on further socializing services (public transit, hospitals, schools, etc.) as well as importing goods from other communities. This in turn implies that the production of capital goods upon which the whole of society depends be owned by the communities that it services.
Highly elaborate explanation, much appreciated
shortest leftist comment
🙏
Profit rates have not gone down. You are wrong.
The amount of money capitalists gets through dividends did go down, wich is probably good for leftists. But the profit rates have remained constant for the most part.
Longest youtube comment I have ever seen
Fascinating. Thanks for the video.
New TMP video ! Yay ! I may be late for work today
Thank You!!!!
Why isn't this information being put on blast in the media like on Twitter from Twitter to you know the news my emails I want. This is what I want to hear about Kamala Harris
Thank you.
Why don't you upload more frequently bro.
Why don't you donate bro
Because he (the narrator) is only an undergraduate and has heaps of studying.
I have a full-time job and am writing a PhD thesis :( I'm hoping to return to a more regular upload schedule soon.
@@themarxistproject what thesis ???
Damn that’s insane man ! Good luck to you ! Much love from Vietnam 🇻🇳 ❤️✊🚩🛠️
For the TRPF, it has been verified by the likes of Paul Cockshott but the rest are interesting still.
Maybe Paul Cockshott is worth a video for his works.
Cockshott is anti-Leninist (dogmatic, orthodox Marxist) and anti-lgbt (which he rationalizes using Marxist jargon)
This has been the greatest let down in levels of political desirability from one generation of a family to another involving a president (VPs and candidates included) since the jump from Henry Wallace to George Wallace. Not even Bush Senior to his children, or RFK Jr to the Kennedy name can compare, be it on how much I agree with them or actual competency/qualifications.
George and Henry Wallace were not relatives.
@@kaynight64 The HELL! I WAS LIED TO!!!!
Probably because Kamala never grew up with her father and instead raised by her Indian mother who was a cancer scientist
Great vid
I love this video
somebody must have chucked that apple to be so far from the tree.
Candace Owens says this man isn't Kamala's father. I can understand how that's the case because of how different his daughter is.
Helou mr. marxist 😊
Hello from Russia. I have a question for Western Marxists. In the East, it is generally believed that the Frankfurt school is idealism and has nothing to do with Marxism. Movements such as LGBT, BLM, are engaged in superstructure. Whereas Marxism itself speaks of a basis. Can anyone explain why the United States and Europe really consider the Frankfurt School to be a new step in Marxism? I would be grateful if you could provide links to some material on this issue. Or tell me which author is worth watching, reading.
The Frankfurt school and "so-called" Postmodernism is not regarded by Marxists to be a new step in Marxism. You can hear such opinions by either social democrats or "radical liberals" / "progressives" etc. The existence of non-binary people is not up to debate, it is observable reality both historically and in our societies today. The struggle against racism and against sexism has been an arena in which Marxists contributed greatly since the formation of Marxism as an ideological framework, as a tool for liberation via revolution. When it comes to intersectionality and the struggle against patriarchy and white supremacy there are many books one can look into an research, and I hope (since I can't think many on the top of my head) other will elaborate more on this field. I could only recommend Fanon's works and the work done in the GDR regarding "LGBT+ issues". However, if one wants to actually equip themselves with the tools necessary to understand these issues in their core needs to focus on understanding dialectical materialism (and avoid vulgar and mechanistic assertions). Saying things like: "movements engaged in superstructure" sounds similar to those that don't support anticolonial struggles because they are "bourgeois". Race essentialism, vulgar materialist understandings of gender etc. are far better investigated when you research how they came to be and what are the characteristics of their development. For instance, studying colonialism helps someone understand white supremancy far better than only looking at the systemic injustice of today
Gabriel Rockhill on youtube likes to critique the Frankfurt school 24/7, you might like that. You aren't scared of the LGBTQ+ right? You are only right that these movements really can't do anything for themselves. BLM has fallen to corruption scanadals, and the LGBTQ movement here is all identity politics and has nothing to do with organizing with other oppressed intersectionalities against their oppressors. Some may be socialists, but a majority are still liberals/democrats that have never read a book on Marxism. We can see how the LGBTQ+ movement is even co-opted by neoliberals. On pride month, corporations change their logos to reflect the LGBTQ, but this is only identity and has nothing to do with all oppressed peoples. The second Pride month is over, these same corporations go back to normal, still oppressing the LGBTQ and the rest of the world. Would be nice to see a real group pop up again like the Black Panther Party. Still, the Frankfurt school has some nice writings. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water too.
You should listen to Gabriel Rockhill lectures to understand why and how the Frankfurt school and "compatible" Left came to be. His lectures are here on TH-cam.
@@BalkanSpectre better words than my comment that got deleted by youtube 😭 thank u
@@BalkanSpectrewow, fantastic response!
The whole point of new technology is to increase output.
Yeah, but that consistently increased supply may result in consistently decreased demand, and thus decreased value and spending of more and more things. I think that’s the question
@@alephmale3171 No that's not the question at all. It's amazing this guy is getting paid for this nonsense.
@@candorsspot2775 I am certain that you’re being obtuse due to a presumption you understand what he’s talking about due to your trust in familiar common sense.
@@alephmale3171 You're right. Donald has no common sense. All of this BS has been tried in s hole countries and failed. Not a single thing Marx said has been proven true.
Secrett final boss
Shes suppisedly a powerful political figure but why does she come across so dumb. It has to be an act. Shes wearing a mask.
my guess is that she's probably the only one who could unify the majority of the liberal factions and is trying to mimick a blue trump on stage/in media
Your mistake is confusing political power with smarts. Also I think she is definitely smart just not in the ways we can observe by her speech.
@MrTooEarnestOnline
I'm guessing you missed the "32 days" incident... That looks like an idiot to me. She doesn't think, or maybe she just can't.
Capital cannot make itself.
Then AI is not capital, but labour?
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 , that would depend on how you used it.
FIRST!!!
Kammy has daddy issues. E don’t even know if Donald is her real daddy.
baffles me how the worship of Marx is not seen like championing Gentile?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Wow your conclusion sounds exactly like a middle school essay conclusion.
almost like the channel is for introductory level content for people like you
@@nolo5220 Dude is working on a PhD, I expected better.
@@RachManJohnwhere'd you find this out?
I don’t know why there is so much debate about it, but Donald Harris is black and so is his daughter
He’s half black, and his daughter is half Indian which makes her only a quarter black. In no other country on Earth does that equal to being black. She’s only a quarter.
@@shabazz360 you’re ridiculous. The nazis killed people with one Jewish grandparent, so you’re just plain wrong about it only being an American phenomenon. You’re completely butchering the concept of multi-racial people and it’s making you look extremely stupid. At the end of the day, you’re what other people perceive you as. A black-looking person is going to be considered black, irrespective of whether one or both of their parents are black, because other people don’t see a hologram of your family tree when they look at you. Kamala Harris is a black-Indian woman, it’s really not that hard to wrap your head around. Genealogically she is also white, but I doubt anyone ever perceived her as such.
@@shabazz360 race doesn't work like that. It's a cultural thing, not a purely genetic thing (genes don't split 50:50 anyway).
You can be born a mexican, raised a mexican, speak Mexican Spanish and feel mexican, only to do a DNA test and learn you're not; does that make you any less mexican? Heck the royal family of the UK are German genetically, but noone disputes them being British.
@ConsumerOfCringe "Mexican", or hispanic in general, isn't a race. You can be white, black, indigenous, or any mixture of these, and be considered Mexican, same with any Central/South American country.
@@Andrew-xl3gr it’s almost like race is a made up concept
👅
The video is not for everyday Americans that do not have economy education background. The short version is that Harris father was/is a Marxist and he teach Marxist ideologies and policies in our universities.
He should’ve taught his daughter to be a better Marxist then
@@CristofahI read an article that said he, indeed, try. In jamaica he hoped his children would of see how life really is, to make them aware of social issues. Sadly, it did not work.
A shorter version might be "I, Fay Johnson, am a run-of-the mill Yankoid dipshit."
*That’s far too reductive*
*A Growth Inducement Strategy for Jamaica in the Short and Medium Term Donald Harris (2012) I'm to gonna show you the bullet points under a section called Guiding Principles*
“Unleash entrepreneurial dynamism by unlocking latent wealth tied up in idle assets. Infrastructure investments as catalyst for job creation through strengthening resiliency of the built in natural environment. Build an innovative and competitive modern economy of big and small firms by strengthening business networks and removing supply side constraints.
Modernize and improve the efficiency of government, social inclusion through community renewal, expanded self agency and equity and proactive partnership between government and private sector.”
Then everyday Americans have no have worms in their brain
What is with this glut of maxist BS recently? Did all the millennial channels I blocked grow up, and now the Gen Z idiots need time to figure out this is dumb? Whatever.
can you debunk the LTV for us then, oh enlightened one.
@@nolo5220
1. LTV does not account for the Diamond-Water Paradox
2. Say's Law (supply creates its own demand) has been accepted by virtually all respected economists, including (Post/Neo)Marxian ones. This means that Marx's schema of exploitation of labor is incoherent, as workers cannot produce "more" or "less" than business owners
3. Marx's understanding of labor as an economic resource was restricted to the parameters of the industrial economy; developed economies today are largely service-based and rely on the production of capital more than labor
@@dansonoflightning2277 You clearly have not read Marx. The Paradox of value is addressed. Value ≠ Price.
Say's law has been thoroughly disproven by and since Keynes, no clue what you're talking about there.
Your third point changes nothing at all lol, you are merely ignoring the fact that industry has just been moved to other parts of the globe.
@@nolo5220
1. That's convenient. All failures to calculate value within a Marxian economic framework can be blamed on discrepancies between value and price. I fail to see how any theory of value that divorces value from price is falsifiable.
2. You're implying that Keynes is more mainstream than the neoclassical school and that post-Keynesian economic theorists (GLS Shackle, Joan Robinson) did not revise Keynes' original argument to account for Say's Law and other ideas borrowed from mainstream economics. Both are false.
3. Worker exploitation in an industrial economy emerged because workers had low control over their options for employment and no workers' rights. Most (really, I'd argue, all legal) labor today is based on employment contracts that are mutually consented to and are therefore voluntary.
Ok Boomer. 😂
"Hitler will emerge from the hatred that sorrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived"
~ JFK
SHLM & HaB (peace & love). The Name of the Creator is Hayah Asher Hayah, as what He told Moshah (Exodus 3:14), preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is a curse to the G-o-d name (Isaiah 65:11-12), preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures. All followers of the Messiah are to do the 7 appointed times (Leviticus 23), but no more animal sacrifices, following the Crucifixion of the Messiah. We are now of the order of MLK TSDQ (King, righteous), to Whom ABRaHM tithed. Ask the Messiah to be your personal Savior. He said to him, I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6). ...for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Hayah (Romans 3:23). The wages for sin is death but the gift of ALaHYM is Everlasting Life through Messiah Yahushgh our Master (Romans 6:23). That if you confess with your mouth the Master Yahushgh and believe in your heart that ALaHYM raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved (Romans 10:9). He Himself is an Atoning Offering for our sins, and not for ours only but also for all the world (1 John 2:2).
Here's a conundrum for you. It's possible for workers to own the means of production under capitalism, for example, a carpenter owns his tools, a taxi driver might own his taxi, a dressmaker owns her sewing machine, etc. Under a Marxist model this would not be allowed, as that person would be considered a capitalist, the means of production must be owned by everybody. Private ownership of so much as a pencil would be banned as that person could write stories and make money from it. Under communism everything that exists in society must be owned by the state and distributed according to state needs. You see the problem here? Actual Marxism is possible under capitalism but not communism. Some clever clogs explain that for me.
Why would anyone ever want to talk to you. You sound annoying and pretentious. Maybe get a personality (and some bitches) and stop focusing so much on economics.
"Private ownership of so much as a pencil would be banned"
It's 2024 and ancaps have yet to graduate from masturbating to loli and freebasing Milton Friedman lectures. FFS, private property doesn't mean what you think it does, lackwit.
A worker owning their own means of production is not capitalism and doesn’t make them a capitalist. However, this sort of relation doesn’t exist nearly as much as you’d think in a capitalist society. Taxi drivers work for a taxi company who exploits them, authors sell their works to a publisher, etc. There are very few businesses where you can create your own value from scratch and actually compete with capitalist corporations. Groups of people with various skills are necessary to coordinate any kind of complex production, and eliminating the extractive class who extracts profits from the work of others is the actual goal of Marxists. Hope that clears it up.
1. Only big corporations can produce the abundance needed for society, not small business owners running taxis and doing handyman work.
2. Marxists are not concerned with treating small business owners the same as the more threatening corporations.
3. You've made the mistake of confusing "private property" with "personal property". No, a pencil is not private property... Unless you are making other people use that pencil to write stuff for you to sell, a ridiculous task. In this case, the private property isnt the pencil, but the press itself.
4. No, resources are not "for the state", it's for the people. To provide jobs and achieve the 0 unemployment that only exists in socialism. To pay for social social services, and to build the military to protect the peoples way of life be being eroded by a take over and capitalist order (look at modern Russia vs Soviet Union vs Old Russia).
5. I would suggest listening to the free TH-cam audiobooks "wage labor and capital" by Karl Marx as well as "principles of communism" by Frederick Engles. In the meantime, the video on historical materialism by the channel "Halim Alrah".
There is a distinction between personal and private property. A carpenter owning a personal workshop can hardly be compared to a capitalist owning a saw mill.