I almost had a mental breakdown because I have an assignment on this and couldn't understand how or where to start. This video made the concept so easy to grasp! Thank you!
It's worth reading the document for yourself...with the intent to understand it, rather than the "I read it in 20 minutes and it's all garbage" nonsense that more than a few people push (at least one in this video's comments section. ~29 pages in 20 minutes says that the moron that claimed it was lying, and their other arguments likewise proved them to be dishonest parrots of propaganda). The summary in this video covers merely one facet of the manifesto. There's a lot more going on that requires time to digest and understand. A lot of people commenting here obviously haven't even tried. One thing of note that people regularly overlook, including in this video, is what is meant by "the State." For bourgeois society, the meaning is clear; we know it because we see it every day as the system of government that rules over us. For proletarian society, it's different: "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." If you replace "the State" with what Marx elaborated, you get something that provides a wholly different meaning than is presented (and assumed): "the State" is no longer some top-down organization of power, but is instead "the proletariat organized as the ruling class" in a bottom-up organization of power, so that the proletariat, by virtue of their number and position as the ruling class, can "win the battle of democracy" by democratically achieving the goals that the proletariat itself forms...which tend towards providing some amount of social welfare, democratization of workplaces, etc. Understanding that "the State" means something different in the socialist/communist sense than it does in the "normal" (bourgeois) sense is important to understanding why "socialism never works" and "the state in socialism never withers away like they promise it will" are ignorant statements. For socialism to work, the proletariat, not a political party, must both overthrow the bourgeois state AND replace it with bottom-up democracy. In fact, the ONLY way that the state can "wither away" is for the proletariat to collectively take on its bureaucratic, legislative, executive, and judicial functions through their workplace/community democratic apparatus, as well as through their voluntary and active participation in both the democratic process (discussion being the first and probably most important part, followed closely by both suggesting and then voting on decisions) AND the process of carrying out the decisions made, including how people will be held accountable to rule breaking, how work will get done (and by whom), etc. It can't be under-stressed: ALL of those things are not decided by some centralized "State" controlled by some party elite, but rather through community and workplace democracy that happens at the lowest levels possible; the distribution of goods and services, as well as labor, is likewise decided through that direct democracy. Not through "endless meetings where all of the minutia are debated until everyone dies of hunger from no work getting done," as the caricature insists, but through social interactions in every-day life, through social responsibility (which must be taught at home and reinforced in society), through social accountability (not to some police State, but to the people you call "neighbor," both on the streets and around the world), and when things need to be worked out above that most basic level, in gatherings of the people whose input is necessary, and who might be affected by the decision in a meaningful way (like people living down-stream of an industrial facility that might create pollution). For the state to be capable of "withering away," as Marx/Engels famously say, that is what the State must be. For that form of State to exist, the proletariat must be the ruling class in a democracy. If the proletariat is placed below a political party, especially one that it does not directly control, then the proletariat is not the ruling party (the masses of the Russian people did not control the party, but were instead largely controlled by it. "Why" is a matter for another discussion, but despite it having a strong proletarian presence fighting for proletarian interests, as well as some bottom-up democratic efficacy, it was still a top-down system controlled by a party elite, rather than a bottom-up democracy. That alone should make any thinking individual question exactly why it should be called a "socialist" country, especially after Lenin explicitly said that it wasn't because of those and other reasons). I realize this is a long post on a simple technicality, but to understand what is meant and what the implications are, you have to spend some time making the connections and such. You can't just read it in 20 minutes and claim to know anything, as some do, nor can you read only this work to gain a reasonable understanding of Marx/Marxism. Be deliberate in reading for the purpose of understanding; don't merely interpret things according to your own views. That's the only way to honestly learn, and to honesty criticize.
Agreed re: taking time to read rather than jumping to conclusions! These videos were originally created as preparation for intensive class discussion (where students came to class having thoroughly done the reading and written on it), and aren't meant to be taken as replacements for the challenging work of grappling with material for oneself. Thanks for your thoughtful comment
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Thanks for the response, and for the video. It's great that you're providing this for that purpose, since it can be a challenge to understand anything by Marx. This video covered some things that aren't readily apparent in the document, and which I hadn't considered in any of my readings.
@@Cuyt24 I mean, sure, if your brain works the way that your argument flows, then anything can be called delusional. Until/unless you actually engage intellectually (and in good faith) with the ideas, and listen to the arguments actually being made, it's not really worth responding except to call you out as a POS troll. Seriously, going to the comments section to a video discussing something that you obviously have no real understanding of or interest in learning about, and then posting complete garbage as an argument proving that the other person is the delusional one, is something that only trolls and brainwashed morons would do...though I don't doubt you fit into both categories.
Since the bourgeoisie are not intellectually alert but depend on animal insticts, ideology provides them with the justification to visit violence, the insurance of their power, onto the proletariat for resisting. A system that depends on violence for existence must necessarily come to an end. We are at a turning point just now for capitalism in which power is shifting to the proletariat. And as it does, like Ellie points out, it will look like the old capitalism before dispersing in order to create goods and services to meet needs instead of accumulation. I am looking for a polite word besides shill for Samuel's assertion but I can't. The fact that Ellie in a very short clip, introduces Marx and Engels in a way that ordinary people, who have a desire for critiacal thinking can understand, should be lauded by everyone. Ellie is not urging anyone to be a Marxist, but she is not throwing mud at Marx and Engels either. I guess by retaining a neutral academic approach, to the ruling class and their shills, she has already crossed the boundary. Finally, Ellie is going to be one of the greatest thinkers in our time. She reminds me of Herbert Mercuse.
wow thank you Dr. Ellie! this helps me see why i feel uncomfortable and confused at any jobs: converting my abilities to monetary value simply doesn't make sense to me. i feel much relieved just knowing that about myself
Oh man, this is the first video I have seen and it's great. I was looking for an audiobook version of the manifesto to get a better understanding to use my words better, but these will be good 🤘
Alluring and compelling This makes for a very positive presentation, and very helpful for a former philosophy major still struggling to 'get it all' Thank you
Ellie, thank you so much for this channel. is noticeable all the work behind every chapter. would you consider interviewing other philosophers and thinkers in order to withdraw bigger conclusions from the discussions. sort of old days philosophy schools. cheers and thank you again this is fantastic. keep those videos rolling.
please please please do more of this, I am ready to religiously take notes of ur explanations, buy materials and read things over and over again! :////
The CM states that the "workers have no fatherland." What does this mean and is it true. One aspect to consider is that migrant labor from the East seasonly entered "Germany" (a somewhat undefined large region before 1870); most workers were farmers, peasants. So, Marx rewrote the sentence, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.," to address the "written history." But, everyone was becoming aware that the interference with kin-based society, the beginnings of social inequality, and the origin of the state were problems that had now to be approached by reference to archaeological data. Kinship structures however were not erased by capitalism as they served as the basis of marriage, long a religious value even if resented. This resentment became palpable in 1918 when the new government in Russia permitted divorce and men left their families in droves. Ironically, many families of the "motherland" lost their fathers but this was nothing new to the war-torn Europeans!
one of the most important concepts when reading Marx and Engels I would recommend to grasp is the "reproduction" of means&materials of production. after understanding why you are living only as a tool rather than a human from the perspective of reproduction values, you then can easily read through the arguments on "class" centered theories.
There is medication for ADHD which apparently works. That's if you really have it and aren't just distracted by your phone or whatever. In that case, you need to be strict with yourself and when you commit to reading something, or engaging with anything intellectual like this video, put distractions physically out of reach. I can concentrate great as long as my phone is too far away to grab it. I know I can't be trusted with it near me, so it's not near me.
A "bourgeois political rule" in the present time is possibly where the citizens are treated as mere consumers. And where there is "socialisation of losses and privatisation of profits".
Their views are much more complex than this. For example, they see the lumpenproletariat, a criminal class, e.g. criminals, vagabonds, etc., as a group of people with no stake in the economic system. Also, they see the tension between the existing ruling classes and capitalists.
Are not the capitalists the real criminal class? The capitalists are exploiting the people. They are destroying the planet. They are even destroying our essence, our spirit. Marx and Engels never imagined that the greed of capitalism would have such a fast and devastating effect on us and on our planet. Our species is degenerating into demonic gluttons and our planet is being destroyed. Communism is not dynamic enough to change the course of this destructive trajectory. Neither is Christianity. Or Islam. Most other belief systems lack the essential dynamic to bring about fundamental change. There is one that can possibly bring about fundamental change and that is veganism. By changing the food we eat we will change how we think and act. We will view the world in an entirely different way. We will free ourselves from the shackles of primitive barbarity. This is our only hope. It is real and it is possible. Thank you for the video. Subscribed.🌱
@@berniv7375 To you but not in Marxist thinking. The lumpenproletariat are exactly what I stated " the criminal class, e.g. criminals, vagabonds, etc., a group of people with no stake in the economic system. " If you are interested in veganism, then clearly no Abrahamic religion is for you too.
How would you explain the cultural facets people have like languages, castes, dresses, traditional continuities which are apart from the notion' base' determines everything.
Most people who read the "Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers."
U must be a jordan pwterson fan. Even if they had not worked a day in life which doesn't make sense as they wrote a book, it still doesn't invalidate what they said. I would suggest to stop being an autistic re7ard and try to learn.
How do you define work? Karl Marx was a prolific writer and one of the greatest thinkers of modern times. He produced many important books and essays that would have easily earned him a tenured professorship at any prestigious university. If you argue that he never "worked," are you also implying that scholarly work doesn't count as work? Why would that be the case? PLUS, It's illogical to assume that a person needs hands-on experience as a plumber to understand how plumbing systems function. An urban architect doesn't need to know how to lay bricks to design great cities. Your counterargument doesn't stand on its merits, and that's disappointing.
@@hyacinthlynch843 no, it has never been attempted. It was intended for a developed country, not some backwards nation looking to pull ahead by a few hundred years in the span of 5 or 10 (and on that level, what happened in the Soviet Union is pretty remarkable). But no, it has never really been attempted, mostly because developed countries still contain enough ignoramuses who own property (mostly on the backs of the poor) and who are afraid of change so they cling to a dying system with all the ignorance they can muster. Sound familiar?
I think Marx mistake in the simplist form would be to say that he assumed that people will behave in rational ways given these truths. We are simply not rational in mass as today's social and political events are demonstrating. ...thank you for this wonderful program. One of the most impressive
He didn't think that people are always rational, it's such a lazy dismissal of his doctrine. Marx thought that communist party would gather around it itself the most politically advanced sections of the working population which would guide the others. This party can fail if the leadership isn't politically advanced enough. The failure of a communist party to lead proletariat is not a failure of Marx because communist party acts independently of him.
The behavior of people within the context of the "State" regardless which is in control the "Bourgeois" or the " Proletariat" never attain their desired goals due to Corruption and Tyranny of its individual members. Each Class resorts to corruption to preserve its power over the other. Machiavelli principles undermine the stated "Desired Philosophical Outcomes" in practice.
You are mistaking Marx simplifying capitalism's mechanism (explaining it in the most uncorruptable settings) and that it has unresolved tensions to Marx dismissing human lapses of judgement. He didn't. Read The German Ideology. But anyway that's not what the manifesto is about. It's not a good criticism against Marx.
Love this channel. A little audio tip here though from a nerd: try and take care of that sibilance. The “S” sounds are a little harsh. We cant have a revolution with sibilance.
One historical point which should be understood concerning the result of the Communist Manifesto, namely the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917 and the execution of the Romanov family, the last monarchs of Russia, is that previously in the 19th century, two other Russian monarchs had been assassinated! So, the notion that Russia was not "ready" for a communist revolution is defied by the historical context.
In a way Marx and Engels trust that the material conditions will create a state in which the proletariat, by way of the nature of spirit(as Marx inverted from Hegel's theory of spirit), will come to conscious awareness of their plight. Through this consciousness they will see within the system of capitalism the very conditions society must undo... The new conditions would be something like socialism and eventually communism. There is a lot of trust placed in the rationality of beings and a sort of natural movement toward a kind of harmony. Let me know if I'm missing the mark?
You are missing the mark. Marx never assumed that "nature of spirit" would create a consciousness in the proletariat, at least not that he wrote about to my knowledge. Engels goes through it a bit in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific," where he elaborates on quotes from Capital (quotations from Capital marked with "()" preceding the quote. Engels's words are marked by [], though you can certainly look up the document to read it in full for yourself. It's not an over-long read): () "the most powerful instrument for shortening labor time, becomes the most unfailing means for placing every moment of the laborer's time and that of his family at the disposal of the capitalist for the purpose of expanding the value of his capital." (Capital, English edition, p. 406) [] Thus it comes about that the overwork of some becomes the preliminary condition for the idleness of others, and that modern industry, which hunts after new consumers over the whole world, forces the consumption of the masses at home down to a starvation minimum, and in doing thus destroys its own home market. () "The law that always equilibrates the relative surplus- population, or industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the laborer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with the accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital (Marx's Capital, p. 661) ------- In short, the proletariat doesn't merely become aware by some "nature of spirit," but instead by recognizing the desperation in with which they struggle merely to survive, the desperation of others, etc; those conditions have always led to uprisings and revolutions, but without analysis to find out what exactly about the system needed to be changed, such revolutions were never guaranteed to come to the same conclusions as Marx et al provided. Analysis and education of the proletariat were/are necessary to overcoming capitalism and the historic conditions which preceded it, because the socialism/communism that Marx advocated for was not merely a benevolent social welfare state, but bottom-up democracy requiring everyone to take active participation in all aspects of governance. You won't find explicit blueprints or descriptions of what was to come by Marx, though, because as material conditions changed, so, too, would the path forward (which must be analyzed for the people to make informed decisions on). I'm not a scholar of Marx, and someone else who is more well-read might have another view, but that's what I understand of Marx's ideas from what I have read. Hopefully it was of use to you.
@@josephshumake5989 If I'm wrong and Hegel's "nature of spirit" is the same as "recognizing own/other suffering (because it's hard to miss recognizing your own desperation), analysis and education" then I'll accept "longer," but not "more pretentious." My writing is habitually long and tends toward being more academic (since that's most of the type of content that I read anymore, and what I tend to emulate in thought and writing), so I put in a lot of effort to edit it down because I've been told it's a problem. I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to convey information to correct what I see as an error, in the most neutral and informative way I can. And again, if I'm wrong about what you refer to or even what I understand of Marx, then that's great, because I'll have learned something new. But for me, it's not about ego or impressing anyone or gaining status, so please don't suggest it is.
I've always thought it was because of this critique of ideologies that we need to fully embrace direct realism in perceptual theory, ala J.J. Gibson, and along with it, the concepts of radical embodied cognition that rejects classic representationalist view of cognition.
The main issue I see with Marxism is that it lacks Hegel's notion of recognition and acknowledgement from the other and gets stuck in a lordship/bondage, master/slave dynamic (and so does a Lockean social contract).
1:17 Which text are you talking about? I thought you were talking about the Communist Manifesto, but then you mention page 172. And the communist manifesto is very short. Only about 30 some pages.
A few corrections: 1) "Part 3: Seizing political power" comes before "Part 2: Seizing the means of production"; that is just obvious. The goal of any revolutionary vanguard party is to seize political power first. Not all private property can be confiscated at once, Lenin had the NEP, for example. 2) "Despotic rule leading to hyper-capitalism and accumulation of wealth"; I do not know how you inferred that. Without private property, accumulation of wealth is impossible. Moreover, the proletariat oppressing the bourgeoisie is not the same as the other way around; because the proletariat does not depend on the bourgeoisie for their labour. The oppression is limited to crushing counter-revolution and terrorist tactics powerless bourgeoisie would employ. Over time the class distinction disappears. 3) You keep saying "at their time", yet you never elaborate whether anything has changed. Nothing has changed fundamentally. This felt like a sly attempt to brand marxism as an outdated theory, while not providing any justification for it. 4) Your language is still idealistic and fails to capture the materialist essence of marxism. Human nature is a weird point to start talking about marxism. I suggest reading "Principles of Communism" by Engels, which was the first draft for the manifesto and it is shorter and sweeter.
It seems to me that Marx and Engels we're reductionist, mechanistic thinkers, and I do not believe the work has much value or relevance to modern real world scenarios. But hey, I do love the Socratic method and am just fine with being wrong
The fun thing about people who point at that as "proof" that Marxism fails, is that they conveniently forget or choose to ignore the fact that the state doesn't "wither away" of its own accord. A worker's democracy, where the workers themselves are the government through "the fullest democracy," is necessary to make it happen, because only by everyone participating in all of the acts of governance (bottom-up democracy, in the workplace, in the living communities, and among/between all of them) can the necessity of a state be made more and more obsolete. Put another way, you need everyone within the city, region (county, state), *and* country (and eventually the world) to actively participate in every aspect of governance (debating issues, proposing/voting on solutions, and upholding them) so that the state and its bureaucracy become obsolete, or else they never will, because that is what it means to "wither away." There's more to the topic, but this is the short version that doesn't even attempt to address the various excuses made against democratization (of which there are many, most of which are strawmen or made without any critical thought, such as regurgitating talking points that are laughably stupid but sound like "owns" to people who don't wish to engage intellectually).
@@history.rhymes You could have just come out and said "I have no interest in intellectually engaging with this topic, and instead will spit out caricatures and nonsense so that I can feel like I said something profound and obviously true." That would have been honest at least. The last time I checked, "try" meant "attempt," and nowhere in the history of Humanity has there been any "attempt" to do what you claim. There have been small-scale "utopias" attempted, some even successfully so to varying degrees...but no socialist or communist in their right mind would claim that they were even TRYING to create a utopia. If you want to join in a discussion, you should at least know the bare minimum of what's being discussed, or else you'll be seen as nothing but a pest, or, if you were honest about your ignorance and had a real willingness to learn, help in doing so. When people say "it fails every time it's tried," they explicitly point to the very first steps taken away from feudal and/or ultra-poor conditions (like in the USSR, China, Cuba, or anywhere else), or in other cases steps taken away from traditional capitalism or imperialism (like in Chile and Yugoslavia). Except they're not pointing at what was accomplished, only what resulted from foreign interventionism (by the U.S. and its allies) to ensure that the movement either shifts towards their capitalist and imperial interests, or else fails completely. That's it. No "global utopia" nonsense. If you had been approaching this in good faith, it might have been worth taking some time to explain further, even provide some examples, but you either don't understand the meaning of words, have no concept of history, come from another spacetime reality entirely...or just don't care to intellectually engage. Either way, it's not worth wasting more time trying...as in, "making an attempt."
Professor Ellie Anderson, students & participants: It's been over 175 years since the manifesto has been published - Can we highlight a country (a real life working model) that has embraced the core teachings of the manifesto and has elevated it's people to the standards of living, individual freedom & global technological contributions now enjoyed by 100's of millions of people in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Canada, Western Europe, America ... Please share your thoughts ... lets have an open and honest discussion
You overlook the fact that that apparent prosperity in the Western-aligned world is built upon the misery, exploitation, oppression, and destruction of the rest of the world
Dear Ms. I respect you. Since you talked about Sartre and Marx, can you do "critique of diabetic reason", the next book I am going to read and I failed twice. I think on Marxism he has more depth than Arendt and Popper.
Is not the case that there's an incompatibility between the communist revolution and historical materialism? Because,look; It seems that the communist revolution only if free will. And It seems that historical materialism only if not free will. What you think about that.
These things are all mixed in together in capitalism, and in what it is to be human (contemplated in antiquity, or before!). This is why I'm a big believer of blended economic systems (maintaining a scrupulous, managed mix of capitalism with socialism), which, in my opinion, can (or has the potential to-) produce an ongoing positive synergy effect on society, done properly. But an added layer of greed from special interest groups, lobbies, etc. has the eventual opposite outcome or impact, if left unchecked (hence the need for an ongoing socially-responsible monitoring, managing etc. of the mix). It can be argued that the railroad lobby, the sugar lobby, the oil lobby and so on, all had their momentarily positive or beneficial impact. But they, and others, have and will, outlive their usefulness, their positive impact. Rather like a good wizard eventually becoming the pinnacle source of evil which controls and personifies the 'dark side.' It is the wizardly energy from nothing were talking about here...-Synergy. And it is a viable phenomenon when talking about capitalism and economic systems otherwise. We humans, as individuals, and as large working class groups bring with us an almost unknowable but tappable energy, which can, in sum, work one way or the other, for those responsible or irresponsible societal leaders and captains of the workforce. Invoking the idea of synergy moves the discussion into the meta realm, becomes pinned as New Age mind-sparkle and is then promptly dismissed. But I don't think it should be dismissed, since I don't believe it is, in fact, unknowable. Should we disregard distinctly known phenomena such as inspiration? depression? and other such matters of the human experience? They all come to the table as people go to work, go home, drive their car, create a work of art, and so on. We disregard these in our materialist thinking at great peril!
Not to forget the animal agriculture lobby: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal%E2%80%93industrial_complex en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
I am very sorry to inform you, but, in case you have not already figured it out, the class of labour you refer to has already begun to be replaced with robotics and AI, not to mention the mass influx of lower-class labour into most of the Western world. The World Economic From (WEF) has so eloquently said we will own nothing and be happy, was not a predictor of communism but more totalism.
Hello I am a 60 + yr old trying to wrap my head around marxism. I recently watched a talk given by Jordan Peterson on the subject and wondered if you might help me by giving a little critique on his video. I enjoy watching and listening to your shows so keep up the good work. Cheers.
First of all, there's no free market under late-stage (our era) of capitalism. If you think there's a "free market" you clearly live under a rock. And that's what is exploitative. Capitalism has a vested interest in ensuring that the competitors (for increasingly shitty jobs and for precarious wages) are kept under the ruthless thumb of the class that oversees the system, namely corporations, shareholders, banks, etc... They've rigged the system, and you suck in that system. The middle class is shrinking because that is the way late-stage capitalism is designed. That's pure exploitation of a system for the gain of the bourgeois class.
The best thing about your vids on Marx, is you dont have old rightwing white dudes in the comments saying shit like "MarXisM kIllEd 100 miLlion PeOPLe!"
Logical ideas expressed both logically and engagingly. Keep up the good work--and the struggle. Marx didn't say "Unite the Workers of the World." You can tell who his audience was by his "Workers of the World, Unite." The self-movement of the proletariat, no parties or trade unions (also tools of the bourgeoisie) is the only answer. Being a worker is a blessing.
Conjecture about how a world without private property would look is ultimately another rabbit hole...one could debate until doomsday. Ultimately one's politics are more a reflection of ones basic nature, temperament and disposition. Intellectual arguments are essentially a sideshow
THE WHOLE REASON THERE CAN _BE_ A TELEOLOGY TO HISTORY IS THAT CONSCIOUS, SELF-MOVING SUBJECTS (human beings!) CAN CREATE THIS TELEOS! THIS IS ALL POSSIBLE SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMAN INTERACTION DOES INDEED RUN ON HEGELIAN POSITIVE SUM LOGIC, NOT JUST ARISTOTELIAN TRUE/FALSE LOGIC!
9:56 How will the proletarian power drop away? What if "Humans are greedy in nature" was true? That means there will still be some people that would act as bourgeoisie. As long as different nations exist they always need a central state power.
That is explained in detail by Lenin. In short, the by means of force and coercion the proletarian state abolishes private property. This force and coercion is directed at both inner and foreign threats and as long as one by one all countries of the world establish proletarian dictatorships the success is guaranteed. State is an apparatus of class rule of one class over others. When proletariat seizes state power and abolish all capitalists, proletariat themselves stop existing as a class. And when there are no classes, no state is need so it begins to wither away as it is said. The notion that "humans are greedy by nature" is true to the same extent that "humans are generous by nature". So that doesn't really prove anything. When proletariat seizes state power they dont do so because they are generous or greedy, they do it because its in their common class interest to do so.
@@RaLeTiNo If every country established proletariat dictatorship, then I wonder how would happen to these parts of society (national security, economy, goods import and export, education system ... ). Who would make rules for them? Who has final words? IMO, proletariat people would have representatives, then they'll create something like parliament, then it becomes capitalism all over again.
@@aryan_karim The administrative bodies of worker councils formulate the rules. Capitalism isn't when parliament. Capitalism is predicated upon specific economic relations like wage labour, private property of means of production, profit, exploitation and commodity production. None of this is present in communism so obviously capitalism cannot arise again. All of your questions are literally answered in State and revolution.
"There have always been and always will be those who are driven by hate and want to blame those who are happy, creative and productive for their misery."
But then wouldn't the ideaology that Marx and Engels have be influenced by their material conditions as well? As in, in some sense, capitalism was necessary in order for them to have these ideas? I agree with Marx, as long as he agrees with that statement. In saying that you cannot "force" a revolution. You have to follow hegelian dialetics and let it sublate. I agree with Marx, I just don't agree with revolution.
Excellent summary. Neither Marx nor Engels understood the fire of individualization that drives most people to create lives, art, and businesses based on their unique desires/skills. Collectivist thought is so anti-human I can't understand how any deep thinker would fall for it.
I trust in those same forces that you say Marx and Engels trusted in but "I need to state this succinctly as possible". We don't have the philosophical infrastructure yet to sustain a truly egalitarian economy. Unless you include Buddhism. E.G. the Star Trek economy i.e. (no money) where people can just have whatever they want materially due to replicator technology. So wealth/class division 'as we think of it' became meaningless. But all the petty ideas that result from capitalism ie Social Darwinism, and Greed is good, Power and Exclusivity unfortunately still run the show. So even though now that we are much closer to the technological breakthroughs required for that revolution than ever before (3d printing, and biological 3d printing, materials engineering, as well as nanotechnology, and genetic engineering) but we unfortunately couldn't sustain the Star Trek economy yet Because we don't have the philosophical infrastructure. Put another way we aren't spiritually evolved enough yet. Mankind still collectively vibrates too low. We be greedy! Look the Tasoday tribe had no real concept of ownership I'm told but we are pretty far from that. That's why our Democracy has become an Oligarchy. Also looming like the sword of Damocles over our jewel like Planet is The 6th Mass Extinction driven by late stage Capitalism. At the end of the day the work is spiritual because now in order to reclaim the better Angles of our Nature there's a lot of spiritual work ahead. And for folks who're just exclusively attached to Rational Empiricism in all compartments this won't compute.
What’s missing from the manifesto recapitulation the professor ably voices is the concept of socializing public goods. So for example forests belong to the people as a shared resource. Or more clearly education, healthcare, and housing are managed by the state so that workers can have those resources. This management of resources is socialist policies. As opposed to the rich owning public goods and adding a ‘profit’ to say public housing so that housing assets take more and more proportion of income as profit.
What is the trust in the material world to get better? Hegel believed in Spirit; Marx obviously does not. Hegel borrowed from Christianity that time is heading somewhere good (Christ will return and all will be well). But, what in the world does Marx as an atheist who only believes in the material world think is guiding/running/ the engine of history in a POSITIVE/PROGRESSIVE direction?
Hegel was an idealist, he was working to progress the idealistic thought of his time, his work was basically to summarize all Western philosophy. Marx wasn't an idealist, he believed in the world shaping people's thoughts including "faith". but he saw that Hegel's method (dialectics) had a very good formal apparatus so he employed it in his work, hence why his method is called "dialectical materialism".
@@VirtuousSaint That’s a good summary. my question is what is automatically-inherently progressive (rather than circular or regressive or no change) about history itself. Christians believe time is teleological because God is shaping history to a good climax…what gave marx faith that history would get better and have a climax given that he was an atheist and materialist?
@@markaustin8288 because we only have each other to rely on, no stupid gods in clouds above, no angels nothing....if we cant get better then we're doomed. but history has proven that humans willingness to survive to achieve something better is a force to be reckon with, no gods needed.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
I almost had a mental breakdown because I have an assignment on this and couldn't understand how or where to start. This video made the concept so easy to grasp! Thank you!
I have heard Communist Manifesto explained by many people, I would say this was the most simplified version of it. Thank you, Ellie!
Criminally underviewed YT channel. Good stuff. Thank you
youtube doesn't value educational content, it's a hook place for many incels and reactionaries alike
Do you think the average person cares about videos on philosophy? Or would you like to watch "philosophy for the masses"?
you're welcome!!!!!!❤❤❤❤ 😘
It would be great if you done a full lecture series.
Hell, I'd watch her talk about anything.
@@evanriddle1614 Same!!
It's worth reading the document for yourself...with the intent to understand it, rather than the "I read it in 20 minutes and it's all garbage" nonsense that more than a few people push (at least one in this video's comments section. ~29 pages in 20 minutes says that the moron that claimed it was lying, and their other arguments likewise proved them to be dishonest parrots of propaganda). The summary in this video covers merely one facet of the manifesto. There's a lot more going on that requires time to digest and understand. A lot of people commenting here obviously haven't even tried.
One thing of note that people regularly overlook, including in this video, is what is meant by "the State." For bourgeois society, the meaning is clear; we know it because we see it every day as the system of government that rules over us. For proletarian society, it's different:
"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."
If you replace "the State" with what Marx elaborated, you get something that provides a wholly different meaning than is presented (and assumed): "the State" is no longer some top-down organization of power, but is instead "the proletariat organized as the ruling class" in a bottom-up organization of power, so that the proletariat, by virtue of their number and position as the ruling class, can "win the battle of democracy" by democratically achieving the goals that the proletariat itself forms...which tend towards providing some amount of social welfare, democratization of workplaces, etc.
Understanding that "the State" means something different in the socialist/communist sense than it does in the "normal" (bourgeois) sense is important to understanding why "socialism never works" and "the state in socialism never withers away like they promise it will" are ignorant statements. For socialism to work, the proletariat, not a political party, must both overthrow the bourgeois state AND replace it with bottom-up democracy. In fact, the ONLY way that the state can "wither away" is for the proletariat to collectively take on its bureaucratic, legislative, executive, and judicial functions through their workplace/community democratic apparatus, as well as through their voluntary and active participation in both the democratic process (discussion being the first and probably most important part, followed closely by both suggesting and then voting on decisions) AND the process of carrying out the decisions made, including how people will be held accountable to rule breaking, how work will get done (and by whom), etc.
It can't be under-stressed: ALL of those things are not decided by some centralized "State" controlled by some party elite, but rather through community and workplace democracy that happens at the lowest levels possible; the distribution of goods and services, as well as labor, is likewise decided through that direct democracy. Not through "endless meetings where all of the minutia are debated until everyone dies of hunger from no work getting done," as the caricature insists, but through social interactions in every-day life, through social responsibility (which must be taught at home and reinforced in society), through social accountability (not to some police State, but to the people you call "neighbor," both on the streets and around the world), and when things need to be worked out above that most basic level, in gatherings of the people whose input is necessary, and who might be affected by the decision in a meaningful way (like people living down-stream of an industrial facility that might create pollution).
For the state to be capable of "withering away," as Marx/Engels famously say, that is what the State must be. For that form of State to exist, the proletariat must be the ruling class in a democracy. If the proletariat is placed below a political party, especially one that it does not directly control, then the proletariat is not the ruling party (the masses of the Russian people did not control the party, but were instead largely controlled by it. "Why" is a matter for another discussion, but despite it having a strong proletarian presence fighting for proletarian interests, as well as some bottom-up democratic efficacy, it was still a top-down system controlled by a party elite, rather than a bottom-up democracy. That alone should make any thinking individual question exactly why it should be called a "socialist" country, especially after Lenin explicitly said that it wasn't because of those and other reasons).
I realize this is a long post on a simple technicality, but to understand what is meant and what the implications are, you have to spend some time making the connections and such. You can't just read it in 20 minutes and claim to know anything, as some do, nor can you read only this work to gain a reasonable understanding of Marx/Marxism. Be deliberate in reading for the purpose of understanding; don't merely interpret things according to your own views. That's the only way to honestly learn, and to honesty criticize.
Agreed re: taking time to read rather than jumping to conclusions! These videos were originally created as preparation for intensive class discussion (where students came to class having thoroughly done the reading and written on it), and aren't meant to be taken as replacements for the challenging work of grappling with material for oneself. Thanks for your thoughtful comment
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Thanks for the response, and for the video. It's great that you're providing this for that purpose, since it can be a challenge to understand anything by Marx. This video covered some things that aren't readily apparent in the document, and which I hadn't considered in any of my readings.
@@Cuyt24 I mean, sure, if your brain works the way that your argument flows, then anything can be called delusional. Until/unless you actually engage intellectually (and in good faith) with the ideas, and listen to the arguments actually being made, it's not really worth responding except to call you out as a POS troll.
Seriously, going to the comments section to a video discussing something that you obviously have no real understanding of or interest in learning about, and then posting complete garbage as an argument proving that the other person is the delusional one, is something that only trolls and brainwashed morons would do...though I don't doubt you fit into both categories.
I appreciate the long comment!
Since the bourgeoisie are not intellectually alert but depend on animal insticts, ideology provides them with the justification to visit violence, the insurance of their power, onto the proletariat for resisting. A system that depends on violence for existence must necessarily come to an end. We are at a turning point just now for capitalism in which power is shifting to the proletariat. And as it does, like Ellie points out, it will look like the old capitalism before dispersing in order to create goods and services to meet needs instead of accumulation. I am looking for a polite word besides shill for Samuel's assertion but I can't.
The fact that Ellie in a very short clip, introduces Marx and Engels in a way that ordinary people, who have a desire for critiacal thinking can understand, should be lauded by everyone. Ellie is not urging anyone to be a Marxist, but she is not throwing mud at Marx and Engels either. I guess by retaining a neutral academic approach, to the ruling class and their shills, she has already crossed the boundary. Finally, Ellie is going to be one of the greatest thinkers in our time. She reminds me of Herbert Mercuse.
wow thank you Dr. Ellie! this helps me see why i feel uncomfortable and confused at any jobs: converting my abilities to monetary value simply doesn't make sense to me. i feel much relieved just knowing that about myself
Oh man, this is the first video I have seen and it's great. I was looking for an audiobook version of the manifesto to get a better understanding to use my words better, but these will be good 🤘
Alluring and compelling This makes for a very positive presentation, and very helpful for a former philosophy major still struggling to 'get it all' Thank you
How do you spend your days?
Ellie, thank you so much for this channel. is noticeable all the work behind every chapter. would you consider interviewing other philosophers and thinkers in order to withdraw bigger conclusions from the discussions. sort of old days philosophy schools. cheers and thank you again this is fantastic. keep those videos rolling.
3:20 Note: Marx and Engels in fact anticipated what Lenin would later call as imperialism, in demystifying the “free market”
please please please do more of this, I am ready to religiously take notes of ur explanations, buy materials and read things over and over again! :////
Like watching these lectures, few people are able to explain sophisticated things in such convinient way.
I have long had an interest in philosophy. Thank you so much this wonderfully informative channel and your insightful talks.
What a channel!! I'm loving your videos, professor!
i must say you this really breaks down the manifesto in simple form. thank you
Thanks! I am finally starting to explore Marx, this helped.
How deep. You need a time machine.
You might as well explore a cesspool
Brilliant Video. I really Love the way you explain things. This was one of the Best Videos. I have ever Heard. Thank You So Much. ❤❤❤👍👍👍.
Thank you, this content is very awesome 💜
The CM states that the "workers have no fatherland." What does this mean and is it true. One aspect to consider is that migrant labor from the East seasonly entered "Germany" (a somewhat undefined large region before 1870); most workers were farmers, peasants. So, Marx rewrote the sentence, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles.," to address the "written history." But, everyone was becoming aware that the interference
with kin-based society, the beginnings of social
inequality, and the origin of the state were problems
that had now to be approached by reference
to archaeological data. Kinship structures however were not erased by capitalism as they served as the basis of marriage, long a religious value even if resented. This resentment became palpable in 1918 when the new government in Russia permitted divorce and men left their families in droves. Ironically, many families of the "motherland" lost their fathers but this was nothing new to the war-torn Europeans!
Really loved this Dr. Anderson! Thanks!
I believe I'm listening a lecture of socialism, back in my 80's high school, in the Socialist Republic of Romania.
I would agree that “The Communist Manifesto” has helped to reveal the truth of human nature.
one of the most important concepts when reading Marx and Engels I would recommend to grasp is the "reproduction" of means&materials of production. after understanding why you are living only as a tool rather than a human from the perspective of reproduction values, you then can easily read through the arguments on "class" centered theories.
Clear, direct and so well presented.
thank you so much, these videos are SUPER HELPFUL
I envy those who don't have adhd and able to stay focused and read a lot and become one of the smart clever bunch of humans
There is medication for ADHD which apparently works. That's if you really have it and aren't just distracted by your phone or whatever. In that case, you need to be strict with yourself and when you commit to reading something, or engaging with anything intellectual like this video, put distractions physically out of reach. I can concentrate great as long as my phone is too far away to grab it. I know I can't be trusted with it near me, so it's not near me.
A "bourgeois political rule" in the present time is possibly where the citizens are treated as mere consumers. And where there is "socialisation of losses and privatisation of profits".
Their views are much more complex than this. For example, they see the lumpenproletariat, a criminal class, e.g. criminals, vagabonds, etc., as a group of people with no stake in the economic system. Also, they see the tension between the existing ruling classes and capitalists.
Are not the capitalists the real criminal class? The capitalists are exploiting the people. They are destroying the planet. They are even destroying our essence, our spirit. Marx and Engels never imagined that the greed of capitalism would have such a fast and devastating effect on us and on our planet. Our species is degenerating into demonic gluttons and our planet is being destroyed. Communism is not dynamic enough to change the course of this destructive trajectory. Neither is Christianity. Or Islam. Most other belief systems lack the essential dynamic to bring about fundamental change. There is one that can possibly bring about fundamental change and that is veganism. By changing the food we eat we will change how we think and act. We will view the world in an entirely different way. We will free ourselves from the shackles of primitive barbarity. This is our only hope. It is real and it is possible. Thank you for the video. Subscribed.🌱
@@berniv7375 To you but not in Marxist thinking. The lumpenproletariat are exactly what I stated " the criminal class, e.g. criminals, vagabonds, etc., a group of people with no stake in the economic system. " If you are interested in veganism, then clearly no Abrahamic religion is for you too.
Awesome presentation!! You go girl!
How would you explain the cultural facets people have like languages, castes, dresses, traditional continuities which are apart from the notion' base' determines everything.
Finally is something in booktube that is not Shadowhunters
Most people who read the "Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers."
U must be a jordan pwterson fan. Even if they had not worked a day in life which doesn't make sense as they wrote a book, it still doesn't invalidate what they said. I would suggest to stop being an autistic re7ard and try to learn.
@@truthprevails8836
It's proven time and time again, Marxism/socialism/communism doesn't work.
You used the caps in the wrong letters.
How do you define work? Karl Marx was a prolific writer and one of the greatest thinkers of modern times. He produced many important books and essays that would have easily earned him a tenured professorship at any prestigious university. If you argue that he never "worked," are you also implying that scholarly work doesn't count as work? Why would that be the case?
PLUS, It's illogical to assume that a person needs hands-on experience as a plumber to understand how plumbing systems function. An urban architect doesn't need to know how to lay bricks to design great cities. Your counterargument doesn't stand on its merits, and that's disappointing.
@@hyacinthlynch843 no, it has never been attempted. It was intended for a developed country, not some backwards nation looking to pull ahead by a few hundred years in the span of 5 or 10 (and on that level, what happened in the Soviet Union is pretty remarkable). But no, it has never really been attempted, mostly because developed countries still contain enough ignoramuses who own property (mostly on the backs of the poor) and who are afraid of change so they cling to a dying system with all the ignorance they can muster. Sound familiar?
Enjoyed the video and subbed, but then made the mistake of reading the comments and now have dislocated eyeballs due to the eye rolling.
FR
I think Marx mistake in the simplist form would be to say that he assumed that people will behave in rational ways given these truths. We are simply not rational in mass as today's social and political events are demonstrating. ...thank you for this wonderful program. One of the most impressive
He didn't think that people are always rational, it's such a lazy dismissal of his doctrine. Marx thought that communist party would gather around it itself the most politically advanced sections of the working population which would guide the others. This party can fail if the leadership isn't politically advanced enough. The failure of a communist party to lead proletariat is not a failure of Marx because communist party acts independently of him.
Yeah, you don't understand Marx. What's happening today has only proven his works correct.
The behavior of people within the context of the "State" regardless which is in control the "Bourgeois" or the " Proletariat" never attain their desired goals due to Corruption and Tyranny of its individual members. Each Class resorts to corruption to preserve its power over the other. Machiavelli principles undermine the stated "Desired Philosophical Outcomes" in practice.
@@glennkoslowsky4631 nah
You are mistaking Marx simplifying capitalism's mechanism (explaining it in the most uncorruptable settings) and that it has unresolved tensions to Marx dismissing human lapses of judgement. He didn't. Read The German Ideology. But anyway that's not what the manifesto is about. It's not a good criticism against Marx.
A presentation of the Manifesto that is relatively fair. There's much more of course, that one needs to be truly informed, but this is a good start.
Thank you for this.
Love the detailed analysis mixed with a perfect speaking tempo!
Marx and Engels wrote a lot of this manifesto near where I live in Eastbourne. There used to be a blue plaque on the building but somebody stole it.
Love this channel. A little audio tip here though from a nerd: try and take care of that sibilance. The “S” sounds are a little harsh. We cant have a revolution with sibilance.
1:00 i like the bottom up approach.. no but seriously this is serious stuff
Are there concrete numbers in relation to group of people? Or these are just hyperboles?
One historical point which should be understood concerning the result of the Communist Manifesto, namely the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917 and the execution of the Romanov family, the last monarchs of Russia, is that previously in the 19th century, two other Russian monarchs had been assassinated! So, the notion that Russia was not "ready" for a communist revolution is defied by the historical context.
I prefer freedom over communism.
In a way Marx and Engels trust that the material conditions will create a state in which the proletariat, by way of the nature of spirit(as Marx inverted from Hegel's theory of spirit), will come to conscious awareness of their plight. Through this consciousness they will see within the system of capitalism the very conditions society must undo... The new conditions would be something like socialism and eventually communism. There is a lot of trust placed in the rationality of beings and a sort of natural movement toward a kind of harmony. Let me know if I'm missing the mark?
yes , basically he was on drugs.
Google: is Marx deterministic?; or, Marx and determinism
You are missing the mark. Marx never assumed that "nature of spirit" would create a consciousness in the proletariat, at least not that he wrote about to my knowledge. Engels goes through it a bit in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific," where he elaborates on quotes from Capital (quotations from Capital marked with "()" preceding the quote. Engels's words are marked by [], though you can certainly look up the document to read it in full for yourself. It's not an over-long read):
() "the most powerful instrument for shortening labor time, becomes the most unfailing means for placing every moment of the laborer's time and that of his family at the disposal of the capitalist for the purpose of expanding the value of his capital." (Capital, English edition, p. 406)
[] Thus it comes about that the overwork of some becomes the preliminary condition for the idleness of others, and that modern industry, which hunts after new consumers over the whole world, forces the consumption of the masses at home down to a starvation minimum, and in doing thus destroys its own home market.
() "The law that always equilibrates the relative surplus- population, or industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the laborer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with the accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital (Marx's Capital, p. 661)
-------
In short, the proletariat doesn't merely become aware by some "nature of spirit," but instead by recognizing the desperation in with which they struggle merely to survive, the desperation of others, etc; those conditions have always led to uprisings and revolutions, but without analysis to find out what exactly about the system needed to be changed, such revolutions were never guaranteed to come to the same conclusions as Marx et al provided. Analysis and education of the proletariat were/are necessary to overcoming capitalism and the historic conditions which preceded it, because the socialism/communism that Marx advocated for was not merely a benevolent social welfare state, but bottom-up democracy requiring everyone to take active participation in all aspects of governance. You won't find explicit blueprints or descriptions of what was to come by Marx, though, because as material conditions changed, so, too, would the path forward (which must be analyzed for the people to make informed decisions on).
I'm not a scholar of Marx, and someone else who is more well-read might have another view, but that's what I understand of Marx's ideas from what I have read. Hopefully it was of use to you.
@@samuelrosander1048 so, what I said... Just longer and more pretentious?
@@josephshumake5989 If I'm wrong and Hegel's "nature of spirit" is the same as "recognizing own/other suffering (because it's hard to miss recognizing your own desperation), analysis and education" then I'll accept "longer," but not "more pretentious."
My writing is habitually long and tends toward being more academic (since that's most of the type of content that I read anymore, and what I tend to emulate in thought and writing), so I put in a lot of effort to edit it down because I've been told it's a problem. I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to convey information to correct what I see as an error, in the most neutral and informative way I can.
And again, if I'm wrong about what you refer to or even what I understand of Marx, then that's great, because I'll have learned something new. But for me, it's not about ego or impressing anyone or gaining status, so please don't suggest it is.
I've always thought it was because of this critique of ideologies that we need to fully embrace direct realism in perceptual theory, ala J.J. Gibson, and along with it, the concepts of radical embodied cognition that rejects classic representationalist view of cognition.
direct realism is a ridiculous notion
Thanks my teacher
Great explanation
I am from kashmir
I love the way you teach
I like this video very much. Indeed, communism is about human and their being, not about centralisation or collectivism.
no, it's not. humanism is for hegelians or existentialists.
The main issue I see with Marxism is that it lacks Hegel's notion of recognition and acknowledgement from the other and gets stuck in a lordship/bondage, master/slave dynamic (and so does a Lockean social contract).
Marxism doesn't need Hegel. Marx isn't Hegel's disciple, he's Hegel's superior.
Wonderful lecture! Thanks so much 🙏
1:17 Which text are you talking about? I thought you were talking about the Communist Manifesto, but then you mention page 172. And the communist manifesto is very short. Only about 30 some pages.
It's from the "Communist Manifesto" as printed in the book Marx: Selected Writings (Hackett). This is the book I assign for this class to my students
that was actually good i was preparing for my sociology exam and that came in handy
Ok, you got me! When we start?
Awesome video, thanks
A few corrections:
1) "Part 3: Seizing political power" comes before "Part 2: Seizing the means of production"; that is just obvious. The goal of any revolutionary vanguard party is to seize political power first. Not all private property can be confiscated at once, Lenin had the NEP, for example.
2) "Despotic rule leading to hyper-capitalism and accumulation of wealth"; I do not know how you inferred that. Without private property, accumulation of wealth is impossible. Moreover, the proletariat oppressing the bourgeoisie is not the same as the other way around; because the proletariat does not depend on the bourgeoisie for their labour. The oppression is limited to crushing counter-revolution and terrorist tactics powerless bourgeoisie would employ. Over time the class distinction disappears.
3) You keep saying "at their time", yet you never elaborate whether anything has changed. Nothing has changed fundamentally. This felt like a sly attempt to brand marxism as an outdated theory, while not providing any justification for it.
4) Your language is still idealistic and fails to capture the materialist essence of marxism. Human nature is a weird point to start talking about marxism.
I suggest reading "Principles of Communism" by Engels, which was the first draft for the manifesto and it is shorter and sweeter.
Great video! I think the audio was a little weird. I think it was clipping
You're doing a great job! Thanks a ton!
It seems to me that Marx and Engels we're reductionist, mechanistic thinkers, and I do not believe the work has much value or relevance to modern real world scenarios. But hey, I do love the Socratic method and am just fine with being wrong
Thanks!
This sounds like Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality.
Rousseau was quite cooking.
"Rousseau fathered five children with Thérèse Levasseur, his domestic partner, but left them all to a Paris orphanage."
Damn, that was deep, really appreciated!
this was brilliant, thank you
It would be great if you make a video Marxism itself and the representatives of Marxism in the 20th century as well.
Marxism speaks of "the withering away of the state". I've been waiting for THAT for some time now.
The fun thing about people who point at that as "proof" that Marxism fails, is that they conveniently forget or choose to ignore the fact that the state doesn't "wither away" of its own accord. A worker's democracy, where the workers themselves are the government through "the fullest democracy," is necessary to make it happen, because only by everyone participating in all of the acts of governance (bottom-up democracy, in the workplace, in the living communities, and among/between all of them) can the necessity of a state be made more and more obsolete.
Put another way, you need everyone within the city, region (county, state), *and* country (and eventually the world) to actively participate in every aspect of governance (debating issues, proposing/voting on solutions, and upholding them) so that the state and its bureaucracy become obsolete, or else they never will, because that is what it means to "wither away."
There's more to the topic, but this is the short version that doesn't even attempt to address the various excuses made against democratization (of which there are many, most of which are strawmen or made without any critical thought, such as regurgitating talking points that are laughably stupid but sound like "owns" to people who don't wish to engage intellectually).
@@history.rhymes You could have just come out and said "I have no interest in intellectually engaging with this topic, and instead will spit out caricatures and nonsense so that I can feel like I said something profound and obviously true." That would have been honest at least.
The last time I checked, "try" meant "attempt," and nowhere in the history of Humanity has there been any "attempt" to do what you claim. There have been small-scale "utopias" attempted, some even successfully so to varying degrees...but no socialist or communist in their right mind would claim that they were even TRYING to create a utopia. If you want to join in a discussion, you should at least know the bare minimum of what's being discussed, or else you'll be seen as nothing but a pest, or, if you were honest about your ignorance and had a real willingness to learn, help in doing so.
When people say "it fails every time it's tried," they explicitly point to the very first steps taken away from feudal and/or ultra-poor conditions (like in the USSR, China, Cuba, or anywhere else), or in other cases steps taken away from traditional capitalism or imperialism (like in Chile and Yugoslavia). Except they're not pointing at what was accomplished, only what resulted from foreign interventionism (by the U.S. and its allies) to ensure that the movement either shifts towards their capitalist and imperial interests, or else fails completely. That's it. No "global utopia" nonsense.
If you had been approaching this in good faith, it might have been worth taking some time to explain further, even provide some examples, but you either don't understand the meaning of words, have no concept of history, come from another spacetime reality entirely...or just don't care to intellectually engage. Either way, it's not worth wasting more time trying...as in, "making an attempt."
Impact of averroesm on Marxism is significant specifically general intellect.
Well done!
Just superb.
This might be too much to ask for but will you consider adding what Bakunin thought about the proletariat seizing the state ?
Nicely done
Professor Ellie Anderson, students & participants: It's been over 175 years since the manifesto has been published - Can we highlight a country (a real life working model) that has embraced the core teachings of the manifesto and has elevated it's people to the standards of living, individual freedom & global technological contributions now enjoyed by 100's of millions of people in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Canada, Western Europe, America ... Please share your thoughts ... lets have an open and honest discussion
You overlook the fact that that apparent prosperity in the Western-aligned world is built upon the misery, exploitation, oppression, and destruction of the rest of the world
Dear Ms. I respect you. Since you talked about Sartre and Marx, can you do "critique of diabetic reason", the next book I am going to read and I failed twice. I think on Marxism he has more depth than Arendt and Popper.
diabetic?
Dialectical.
Let’s go!
Very good.
🙏; thinking leads to action, some people are greedy and selfish
Excellent!
Is not the case that there's an incompatibility between the communist revolution and historical materialism? Because,look;
It seems that the communist revolution only if free will.
And
It seems that historical materialism only if not free will.
What you think about that.
These things are all mixed in together in capitalism, and in what it is to be human (contemplated in antiquity, or before!). This is why I'm a big believer of blended economic systems (maintaining a scrupulous, managed mix of capitalism with socialism), which, in my opinion, can (or has the potential to-) produce an ongoing positive synergy effect on society, done properly. But an added layer of greed from special interest groups, lobbies, etc. has the eventual opposite outcome or impact, if left unchecked (hence the need for an ongoing socially-responsible monitoring, managing etc. of the mix). It can be argued that the railroad lobby, the sugar lobby, the oil lobby and so on, all had their momentarily positive or beneficial impact. But they, and others, have and will, outlive their usefulness, their positive impact. Rather like a good wizard eventually becoming the pinnacle source of evil which controls and personifies the 'dark side.' It is the wizardly energy from nothing were talking about here...-Synergy. And it is a viable phenomenon when talking about capitalism and economic systems otherwise. We humans, as individuals, and as large working class groups bring with us an almost unknowable but tappable energy, which can, in sum, work one way or the other, for those responsible or irresponsible societal leaders and captains of the workforce. Invoking the idea of synergy moves the discussion into the meta realm, becomes pinned as New Age mind-sparkle and is then promptly dismissed. But I don't think it should be dismissed, since I don't believe it is, in fact, unknowable. Should we disregard distinctly known phenomena such as inspiration? depression? and other such matters of the human experience? They all come to the table as people go to work, go home, drive their car, create a work of art, and so on. We disregard these in our materialist thinking at great peril!
Not to forget the animal agriculture lobby:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal%E2%80%93industrial_complex
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 11:05
I am very sorry to inform you, but, in case you have not already figured it out, the class of labour you refer to has already begun to be replaced with robotics and AI, not to mention the mass influx of lower-class labour into most of the Western world. The World Economic From (WEF) has so eloquently said we will own nothing and be happy, was not a predictor of communism but more totalism.
Wow!
knowing the default one relaxes, the complex is a forced strategum always marching towards a cliff 🌝
Hello I am a 60 + yr old trying to wrap my head around marxism. I recently watched a talk given by Jordan Peterson on the subject and wondered if you might help me by giving a little critique on his video. I enjoy watching and listening to your shows so keep up the good work. Cheers.
Very interesting, thank you!
What makes capitalism(free market) exploitative?
First of all, there's no free market under late-stage (our era) of capitalism. If you think there's a "free market" you clearly live under a rock. And that's what is exploitative. Capitalism has a vested interest in ensuring that the competitors (for increasingly shitty jobs and for precarious wages) are kept under the ruthless thumb of the class that oversees the system, namely corporations, shareholders, banks, etc... They've rigged the system, and you suck in that system. The middle class is shrinking because that is the way late-stage capitalism is designed. That's pure exploitation of a system for the gain of the bourgeois class.
TALK THAT TALK!
That will be the United Federation of Planets
Nice lectures
Nice teacher
I particularly enjoyed the moment of cognitive dissonance at 9:12
The best thing about your vids on Marx, is you dont have old rightwing white dudes in the comments saying shit like "MarXisM kIllEd 100 miLlion PeOPLe!"
@@magnuskarlsson8655 old rightwing white dudes is not an oppressed minority.
@@magnuskarlsson8655 You’re fractally wrong
@@magnuskarlsson8655 Sorry didn't mean to hurt your feelings, grandpa
@@MegaLotusEater In many places of the world, whites are an oppressed minority and are being forced to a minority everywhere in the western world.
@@drcringe7873 oh you poor thing lol
Logical ideas expressed both logically and engagingly. Keep up the good work--and the struggle. Marx didn't say "Unite the Workers of the World." You can tell who his audience was by his "Workers of the World, Unite." The self-movement of the proletariat, no parties or trade unions (also tools of the bourgeoisie) is the only answer. Being a worker is a blessing.
Conjecture about how a world without private property would look is ultimately another rabbit hole...one could debate until doomsday.
Ultimately one's politics are more a reflection of ones basic nature, temperament and disposition. Intellectual arguments are essentially a sideshow
THE WHOLE REASON THERE CAN _BE_ A TELEOLOGY TO HISTORY IS THAT CONSCIOUS, SELF-MOVING SUBJECTS (human beings!) CAN CREATE THIS TELEOS! THIS IS ALL POSSIBLE SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMAN INTERACTION DOES INDEED RUN ON HEGELIAN POSITIVE SUM LOGIC, NOT JUST ARISTOTELIAN TRUE/FALSE LOGIC!
9:56 How will the proletarian power drop away? What if "Humans are greedy in nature" was true? That means there will still be some people that would act as bourgeoisie. As long as different nations exist they always need a central state power.
That is explained in detail by Lenin. In short, the by means of force and coercion the proletarian state abolishes private property. This force and coercion is directed at both inner and foreign threats and as long as one by one all countries of the world establish proletarian dictatorships the success is guaranteed.
State is an apparatus of class rule of one class over others. When proletariat seizes state power and abolish all capitalists, proletariat themselves stop existing as a class. And when there are no classes, no state is need so it begins to wither away as it is said.
The notion that "humans are greedy by nature" is true to the same extent that "humans are generous by nature". So that doesn't really prove anything. When proletariat seizes state power they dont do so because they are generous or greedy, they do it because its in their common class interest to do so.
@@RaLeTiNo If every country established proletariat dictatorship, then I wonder how would happen to these parts of society (national security, economy, goods import and export, education system ... ). Who would make rules for them? Who has final words?
IMO, proletariat people would have representatives, then they'll create something like parliament, then it becomes capitalism all over again.
@@aryan_karim
The administrative bodies of worker councils formulate the rules.
Capitalism isn't when parliament. Capitalism is predicated upon specific economic relations like wage labour, private property of means of production, profit, exploitation and commodity production. None of this is present in communism so obviously capitalism cannot arise again.
All of your questions are literally answered in State and revolution.
"There have always been and always will be those who are driven by hate and want to blame those who are happy, creative and productive for their misery."
But then wouldn't the ideaology that Marx and Engels have be influenced by their material conditions as well? As in, in some sense, capitalism was necessary in order for them to have these ideas? I agree with Marx, as long as he agrees with that statement. In saying that you cannot "force" a revolution. You have to follow hegelian dialetics and let it sublate.
I agree with Marx, I just don't agree with revolution.
Excellent summary. Neither Marx nor Engels understood the fire of individualization that drives most people to create lives, art, and businesses based on their unique desires/skills. Collectivist thought is so anti-human I can't understand how any deep thinker would fall for it.
Bruh really 😞
Ha ve you read anything from Marx? Because he does address the things you are saying
I trust in those same forces that you say Marx and Engels trusted in but "I need to state this succinctly as possible". We don't have the philosophical infrastructure yet to sustain a truly egalitarian economy. Unless you include Buddhism. E.G. the Star Trek economy i.e. (no money) where people can just have whatever they want materially due to replicator technology. So wealth/class division 'as we think of it' became meaningless. But all the petty ideas that result from capitalism ie Social Darwinism, and Greed is good, Power and Exclusivity unfortunately still run the show.
So even though now that we are much closer to the technological breakthroughs required for that revolution than ever before (3d printing, and biological 3d printing, materials engineering, as well as nanotechnology, and genetic engineering) but we unfortunately couldn't sustain the Star Trek economy yet Because we don't have the philosophical infrastructure. Put another way we aren't spiritually evolved enough yet. Mankind still collectively vibrates too low. We be greedy! Look the Tasoday tribe had no real concept of ownership I'm told but we are pretty far from that. That's why our Democracy has become an Oligarchy. Also looming like the sword of Damocles over our jewel like Planet is The 6th Mass Extinction driven by late stage Capitalism. At the end of the day the work is spiritual because now in order to reclaim the better Angles of our Nature there's a lot of spiritual work ahead. And for folks who're just exclusively attached to Rational Empiricism in all compartments this won't compute.
What’s missing from the manifesto recapitulation the professor ably voices is the concept of socializing public goods. So for example forests belong to the people as a shared resource. Or more clearly education, healthcare, and housing are managed by the state so that workers can have those resources. This management of resources is socialist policies. As opposed to the rich owning public goods and adding a ‘profit’ to say public housing so that housing assets take more and more proportion of income as profit.
What is the trust in the material world to get better? Hegel believed in Spirit; Marx obviously does not. Hegel borrowed from Christianity that time is heading somewhere good (Christ will return and all will be well). But, what in the world does Marx as an atheist who only believes in the material world think is guiding/running/ the engine of history in a POSITIVE/PROGRESSIVE direction?
Hegel was an idealist, he was working to progress the idealistic thought of his time, his work was basically to summarize all Western philosophy. Marx wasn't an idealist, he believed in the world shaping people's thoughts including "faith". but he saw that Hegel's method (dialectics) had a very good formal apparatus so he employed it in his work, hence why his method is called "dialectical materialism".
@@VirtuousSaint That’s a good summary. my question is what is automatically-inherently progressive (rather than circular or regressive or no change) about history itself. Christians believe time is teleological because God is shaping history to a good climax…what gave marx faith that history would get better and have a climax given that he was an atheist and materialist?
@@markaustin8288 he thought that humans are inherently good, unlike your religion
obviously something else rather than a man made imaginary friend who does nothing for the human species.
@@markaustin8288 because we only have each other to rely on, no stupid gods in clouds above, no angels nothing....if we cant get better then we're doomed. but history has proven that humans willingness to survive to achieve something better is a force to be reckon with, no gods needed.
so marx had faith. will see how that plays out :) Hegel seems more the divide and conquer type. you have nice hair!