Who Was Karl Marx And Why Is Everyone Still Talking About Him
video description
Date: 2024-12-23
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
gabriyelp
Nothing is stopping you from forming a workers' coop in any modern capitalist system. The reason why there are still so few (although their distribution vary significantly between industries, and countries for that matter) is because they fail to be as efficient and productive structures as standard corporations/businesses can be (the exception being some sectors of the service industry that never require economy of scale.
Reasons are many, but two of the main explanations are: 1) by being in constant conflict of interests between your own as a worker and your own as business owner, you can't choose optimal strategies, and 2) unless your workers are already rich, your access to capital is limited, thus limiting investment opportunities.
Capitalism works when in a balanced and well-regulated market (as little and as much regulation that is necessary to achieve common goals and an efficient market. The problem is not the theory or the basic system, it's how it's applied today: lack of controls against uncompetitive business practices, lack of equal access to education/training and financing, lack of transparency from all actors (private AND public. Of course our markets can't run well in those conditions. This would most probably get worse if we moved away from capitalism without taking the time to address those problems first (and I would argue that once those problems are fixed, capitalism would be by far the best system we could devise.
reply
Nothing is stopping you from forming a workers' coop in any modern capitalist system. The reason why there are still so few (although their distribution vary significantly between industries, and countries for that matter) is because they fail to be as efficient and productive structures as standard corporations/businesses can be (the exception being some sectors of the service industry that never require economy of scale.
Reasons are many, but two of the main explanations are: 1) by being in constant conflict of interests between your own as a worker and your own as business owner, you can't choose optimal strategies, and 2) unless your workers are already rich, your access to capital is limited, thus limiting investment opportunities.
Capitalism works when in a balanced and well-regulated market (as little and as much regulation that is necessary to achieve common goals and an efficient market. The problem is not the theory or the basic system, it's how it's applied today: lack of controls against uncompetitive business practices, lack of equal access to education/training and financing, lack of transparency from all actors (private AND public. Of course our markets can't run well in those conditions. This would most probably get worse if we moved away from capitalism without taking the time to address those problems first (and I would argue that once those problems are fixed, capitalism would be by far the best system we could devise.
reply
sarah345
The issue I always have is that this philosophy always starts with a factory full of workers and a capitalist twirling his moustache at the top. So then the workers think we do all the work, we should own and run this place. Ok fine. But how does the company start 500 people didn’t get together and say lets found a car company, we will operate at a loss for the first 5 years, but that’s ok, we can all own it together and share that loss. Or each of us can sign up for a few hundred thousand in investment capital understanding that if this doesn’t work out we’ll have to all declare bankruptcy. companies and factories don’t just spring into existence with hundreds of employees.
The company I worked for last, my co worker and I ran our wing of the company, without that much input from the owner day to day. And I started when that part of the company was built so I sort of built it too. But that doesn’t erase the fact that when I got there there was a building, all the tools I needed, and a preexisting steady stream of customers brought in by the rest of the business. I didn’t have to spend years pulling all nighters in my van, the owner did that. And then he provided me with a job and a decent wage. I worked really hard to help grow that company, but I didn’t have anywhere near the same level of investment and personal risk that he did.
reply
The issue I always have is that this philosophy always starts with a factory full of workers and a capitalist twirling his moustache at the top. So then the workers think we do all the work, we should own and run this place. Ok fine. But how does the company start 500 people didn’t get together and say lets found a car company, we will operate at a loss for the first 5 years, but that’s ok, we can all own it together and share that loss. Or each of us can sign up for a few hundred thousand in investment capital understanding that if this doesn’t work out we’ll have to all declare bankruptcy. companies and factories don’t just spring into existence with hundreds of employees.
The company I worked for last, my co worker and I ran our wing of the company, without that much input from the owner day to day. And I started when that part of the company was built so I sort of built it too. But that doesn’t erase the fact that when I got there there was a building, all the tools I needed, and a preexisting steady stream of customers brought in by the rest of the business. I didn’t have to spend years pulling all nighters in my van, the owner did that. And then he provided me with a job and a decent wage. I worked really hard to help grow that company, but I didn’t have anywhere near the same level of investment and personal risk that he did.
reply
adnanabdouu
This is so true to what Lenin stated in the beginning of the first chapter of state and revolution. He was also damn right:
What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the consolation of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie.
reply
This is so true to what Lenin stated in the beginning of the first chapter of state and revolution. He was also damn right:
What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the consolation of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie.
reply
martinbruhn5274
Marx' works aren't strictly speaking a political Plattform, but a set of political philosophical ideas. Marx' works got interpreted and turned into policy in ways, that Marx himself may or may not have vehemently disagreed with. In fact, he did. When it became apparent, what those calling themselves communists and socialists (in the german context of the time) turned out to be, he put his support behind the german socialdemocrats instead. The very same party, that (until the elections coming soon) currently leads the center left, liberal coalition, with a social democrat being the chancellor right now. Social democracy in general being the dominant variety of center left politics. You don't have to love social democrats, but they are both democratically harmless and the last political platform Marx gave his explicit support to. So, probably, Marx would not have been a fan of Stalin, or Mao, or a whole bunch of other people calling themselves Marxists. Marx was evidentially wrong btw on a whole lot of things, that were dumb, but not evil. Like lots of people who have an entirely theoretical approach to something very practical, like politics.
reply
Marx' works aren't strictly speaking a political Plattform, but a set of political philosophical ideas. Marx' works got interpreted and turned into policy in ways, that Marx himself may or may not have vehemently disagreed with. In fact, he did. When it became apparent, what those calling themselves communists and socialists (in the german context of the time) turned out to be, he put his support behind the german socialdemocrats instead. The very same party, that (until the elections coming soon) currently leads the center left, liberal coalition, with a social democrat being the chancellor right now. Social democracy in general being the dominant variety of center left politics. You don't have to love social democrats, but they are both democratically harmless and the last political platform Marx gave his explicit support to. So, probably, Marx would not have been a fan of Stalin, or Mao, or a whole bunch of other people calling themselves Marxists. Marx was evidentially wrong btw on a whole lot of things, that were dumb, but not evil. Like lots of people who have an entirely theoretical approach to something very practical, like politics.
reply
theMifyoo
So an idea, I have had is a problem with communism is that people have to work without really being able to see the benefits of their work. So it doesn't really solve the problem since the distance between the work and it's effects still exist and the benefits of working harder are removed. There is also the vulnerability of it being corrupted by people. An idea I have been considering was that maybe communism needs to be joined with the retirement of humanity. That is to say replacing people with machines in the workforce so that ideally a state is achieved where people are not needed for work, and people don't need work to live. So that people can benefit from their replacement. The big issue is with the transition to such a state, since it needs advanced artificial intelligence and robotics that can replace workers. If a slope isn't formed these technologies could easily make the wage gap wider as people are replaced by machines before the system for them being compensated for their displacement is established.
reply
So an idea, I have had is a problem with communism is that people have to work without really being able to see the benefits of their work. So it doesn't really solve the problem since the distance between the work and it's effects still exist and the benefits of working harder are removed. There is also the vulnerability of it being corrupted by people. An idea I have been considering was that maybe communism needs to be joined with the retirement of humanity. That is to say replacing people with machines in the workforce so that ideally a state is achieved where people are not needed for work, and people don't need work to live. So that people can benefit from their replacement. The big issue is with the transition to such a state, since it needs advanced artificial intelligence and robotics that can replace workers. If a slope isn't formed these technologies could easily make the wage gap wider as people are replaced by machines before the system for them being compensated for their displacement is established.
reply
crash_course
Well, to be fair, while anarchism is cool, fun, peace, punk, and stick it to the man! to think about.
Ultimately if you have a no state, no order society, it will lead to a power vacuum of people’s own interests, whatever they may be. We’re human, we’re flawed, and it’s inevitable.
You’ll end up having one small power group here, one small power group over there, one medium power group here, one big power group over there. All with their own, possibly selfish, hateful, and oppressive, goals, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
Anarchy is simply disorder, and most likely ends up dystopian. Also, if you come across religious anarchists, well, they’re pretty much just theocrats with good marketing.
The reason communism is more palatable to some people is because it’s the working class being in charge. And no that doesn’t inherently mean dictatorship, you can have democratic leftism, you may have heard the term democratic socialism’.
reply
Well, to be fair, while anarchism is cool, fun, peace, punk, and stick it to the man! to think about.
Ultimately if you have a no state, no order society, it will lead to a power vacuum of people’s own interests, whatever they may be. We’re human, we’re flawed, and it’s inevitable.
You’ll end up having one small power group here, one small power group over there, one medium power group here, one big power group over there. All with their own, possibly selfish, hateful, and oppressive, goals, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
Anarchy is simply disorder, and most likely ends up dystopian. Also, if you come across religious anarchists, well, they’re pretty much just theocrats with good marketing.
The reason communism is more palatable to some people is because it’s the working class being in charge. And no that doesn’t inherently mean dictatorship, you can have democratic leftism, you may have heard the term democratic socialism’.
reply
TomatoFettuccini
The greatest irony of America is that Marxism is exactly what it needs, not capitalism. The reason Marxism is vilified in the US is because it is the philosophical opposite of capitalism.
What Marxism is NOT, however, is the government owning all business; that's Stalinism, which is the flipside of capitalism. The difference between Stalinism and modern capitalism is that under Stalinism the State owns everything, whereas with capitalism it's a race to see which dragon can amass the largest pile of gold: they're basically versions of the exact same thing.
America was founded on the ideal that a person could make their fortune there, and that it was free from oppressors both domestic and foreign. Marxism is the economic and workplace equivalent to that, where the proletariat (the workers) own the businesses they work in. Even John Smith warned of completely unfettered capitalism.
What's more American than owning your own business
reply
The greatest irony of America is that Marxism is exactly what it needs, not capitalism. The reason Marxism is vilified in the US is because it is the philosophical opposite of capitalism.
What Marxism is NOT, however, is the government owning all business; that's Stalinism, which is the flipside of capitalism. The difference between Stalinism and modern capitalism is that under Stalinism the State owns everything, whereas with capitalism it's a race to see which dragon can amass the largest pile of gold: they're basically versions of the exact same thing.
America was founded on the ideal that a person could make their fortune there, and that it was free from oppressors both domestic and foreign. Marxism is the economic and workplace equivalent to that, where the proletariat (the workers) own the businesses they work in. Even John Smith warned of completely unfettered capitalism.
What's more American than owning your own business
reply
Leo99929
I'm not saying Marx was right. But when you open your eyes to it, it's concerning how often humanities problems seem to be due to the blind prioritization of profit or productivity over most other factors.
Capitalism is actually responsible for a lot of contemporary issues. Like health care and education costs, which ripple on to affect people critical thinking, research, and decision making skills, which then affects voting choices, which perpetuates the system.
It's like the Turkeys voting for Christmas because that pays for the turkey farms that feed and house them and protect them from all the wild animals that might eat them. And any minute step towards better living conditions at the farm like access to sunlight and more room to move around in is painted as a slippery slope to the inevitable cold starvation of the wilds followed by a wolfs jaws and an agonizing death.
reply
I'm not saying Marx was right. But when you open your eyes to it, it's concerning how often humanities problems seem to be due to the blind prioritization of profit or productivity over most other factors.
Capitalism is actually responsible for a lot of contemporary issues. Like health care and education costs, which ripple on to affect people critical thinking, research, and decision making skills, which then affects voting choices, which perpetuates the system.
It's like the Turkeys voting for Christmas because that pays for the turkey farms that feed and house them and protect them from all the wild animals that might eat them. And any minute step towards better living conditions at the farm like access to sunlight and more room to move around in is painted as a slippery slope to the inevitable cold starvation of the wilds followed by a wolfs jaws and an agonizing death.
reply
Sidecutter
All the other groups suggested, such as race, are creations of the ruling class seeking to exploit and divide us. They're all artificial tools used by capitalism, currently, to keep us from uniting against them. Just one example of how they use it to their benefit - Folks like the irish were not considered white when they came to America. They were discriminated against heavily. When they started to align themselves with other minority groups, especially black Americans, the narrative was quickly adjusted to welcome them as white men and women and cut off that alliance.
Marxism is also exceptionally democratic. The entire idea is to have no one above another. Council decisions, starting at the local level, on relevant issues. People workign together to address larger issues and needs.
reply
All the other groups suggested, such as race, are creations of the ruling class seeking to exploit and divide us. They're all artificial tools used by capitalism, currently, to keep us from uniting against them. Just one example of how they use it to their benefit - Folks like the irish were not considered white when they came to America. They were discriminated against heavily. When they started to align themselves with other minority groups, especially black Americans, the narrative was quickly adjusted to welcome them as white men and women and cut off that alliance.
Marxism is also exceptionally democratic. The entire idea is to have no one above another. Council decisions, starting at the local level, on relevant issues. People workign together to address larger issues and needs.
reply
chrislejuez
I don’t think it’s his teachings that scare people as much as the mass death and suffering that the societies that applied his teachings wrought upon their citizens. I know people from several of those countries and they don’t seem too fond of the guy’s ideas.
I also always felt that Hegel’s historial dialectic is blatant dogma and by extension, so too dialectic materialism. There’s no reason to believe that there’s any such thing as laws of history or that there is any inevitable direction to it. That isn’t to say that Marx didn’t have any prescient criticisms of capitalism. But at times, parts of his writings can come across like a secular religion resting on unfalsifiable leaps of faith complete with a prophet selling utopia. A bit of healthy concern may be warranted.
reply
I don’t think it’s his teachings that scare people as much as the mass death and suffering that the societies that applied his teachings wrought upon their citizens. I know people from several of those countries and they don’t seem too fond of the guy’s ideas.
I also always felt that Hegel’s historial dialectic is blatant dogma and by extension, so too dialectic materialism. There’s no reason to believe that there’s any such thing as laws of history or that there is any inevitable direction to it. That isn’t to say that Marx didn’t have any prescient criticisms of capitalism. But at times, parts of his writings can come across like a secular religion resting on unfalsifiable leaps of faith complete with a prophet selling utopia. A bit of healthy concern may be warranted.
reply
nangarranga
I’ve gotta admit that growing up, I think one thing that I struggled with when it came to critiques of capitalism was not realising the socialist influences that were already a part of modern capitalist society.
Think stuff like trade unions and universal healthcare (I’m in Australia. I don’t know if this was a result of capitalists claiming these ideas or socialists advocating that we lived in a completely capitalist society (obviously it’s capitalist, but it seemed like it was never mentioned that some socialist influences were already there.
So it ended up just feeling like there was no middle ground between capitalism and communism, which I imagine was the general public’s concern during the 20th century, of course bolstered by fear mongering politicians.
reply
I’ve gotta admit that growing up, I think one thing that I struggled with when it came to critiques of capitalism was not realising the socialist influences that were already a part of modern capitalist society.
Think stuff like trade unions and universal healthcare (I’m in Australia. I don’t know if this was a result of capitalists claiming these ideas or socialists advocating that we lived in a completely capitalist society (obviously it’s capitalist, but it seemed like it was never mentioned that some socialist influences were already there.
So it ended up just feeling like there was no middle ground between capitalism and communism, which I imagine was the general public’s concern during the 20th century, of course bolstered by fear mongering politicians.
reply
Leo99929
The average American would earn more if they were in that mythical communist equal pay situation that so many fear vehemently. This is what tells me that that person using communist or Marxist as a pejorative term is just saying the shibboleth's they think they should to conform to their indoctrination within a social group. They almost always, hadn't gone through the education on what it all actually is, what it means, what the differences are, in order to come to their own conclusion that they didn't like it.
I'm not saying communism is good. I'm saying that many people who say they don't like communism, Marxism, or socialism, don't actually understand what those things actually are, or how their life might differ if our society trended in that direction.
reply
The average American would earn more if they were in that mythical communist equal pay situation that so many fear vehemently. This is what tells me that that person using communist or Marxist as a pejorative term is just saying the shibboleth's they think they should to conform to their indoctrination within a social group. They almost always, hadn't gone through the education on what it all actually is, what it means, what the differences are, in order to come to their own conclusion that they didn't like it.
I'm not saying communism is good. I'm saying that many people who say they don't like communism, Marxism, or socialism, don't actually understand what those things actually are, or how their life might differ if our society trended in that direction.
reply
narvuntien
If some asks if you are woke say you don't know what that means and that you are an intersectionalist (its roughly what its supposed to mean. I think Marxism is incomplete but a good place to start, like learning Newtons physics before learning about Einstien and beyond. I don't think Marx predicted the rise of social democracy, a compromise between labor and capital that forced consessions from capitalists for things like taxes, to pay for healthcare and education for workers.
I look forward to the Anarchism episode next week, I wonder if you will have time for Green Anarchism that powers the Environmental movement. aka Solarpunk.
reply
If some asks if you are woke say you don't know what that means and that you are an intersectionalist (its roughly what its supposed to mean. I think Marxism is incomplete but a good place to start, like learning Newtons physics before learning about Einstien and beyond. I don't think Marx predicted the rise of social democracy, a compromise between labor and capital that forced consessions from capitalists for things like taxes, to pay for healthcare and education for workers.
I look forward to the Anarchism episode next week, I wonder if you will have time for Green Anarchism that powers the Environmental movement. aka Solarpunk.
reply
pedrostormrage
Thank you for these explanations (it's very clear that what these politicians are doing is leveraging ignorance to promote fear mongering. I don't think dialectical materialism can explain every social change (some of them are more inherently idealistic) and alienation depends on what kind of work you do, but at the very least you can't deny exploitation is at the core of capitalism, since it rewards greed (but you'll probably try to deny that if you're benefitting from the system. Using Marxist as an insult just says more about you than about the people you are targeting (who would want to be exploited.
reply
Thank you for these explanations (it's very clear that what these politicians are doing is leveraging ignorance to promote fear mongering. I don't think dialectical materialism can explain every social change (some of them are more inherently idealistic) and alienation depends on what kind of work you do, but at the very least you can't deny exploitation is at the core of capitalism, since it rewards greed (but you'll probably try to deny that if you're benefitting from the system. Using Marxist as an insult just says more about you than about the people you are targeting (who would want to be exploited.
reply
shnooble100
Organizing in revolutionary spaces, learning the science of liberation, and getting to know people across my community and other communities, have all been so incredible to experience and deeply empowering.
Through socialist organizing we have been able to help so many in our city. The houseless, people struggling with substance use, and so much more.
The Marxists in my area have really made a tremendous effort to not only address but solve the problems our people.
Grateful to live in an age where socialists are organizing strong, and where WE the people can protect the People.
reply
Organizing in revolutionary spaces, learning the science of liberation, and getting to know people across my community and other communities, have all been so incredible to experience and deeply empowering.
Through socialist organizing we have been able to help so many in our city. The houseless, people struggling with substance use, and so much more.
The Marxists in my area have really made a tremendous effort to not only address but solve the problems our people.
Grateful to live in an age where socialists are organizing strong, and where WE the people can protect the People.
reply
michaelodonnell824
There is a theory that the Labour relations reforms that occurred at the end of the nineteenth and start of the twentieth centuries acted as breaks on the inevitability of a Proletarian Revolution - more time off; limiting working hours; minimum wage legislation; etc actually reduced the impetus towards the Revolution.
If this theory is true, then there is an irony in those who scare talk about current Marxism because they want to rid the world of those Socialist ideals, like Minimum wages and limiting working hours, thus speeding up the possibility of a Proletarian Revolution.
reply
There is a theory that the Labour relations reforms that occurred at the end of the nineteenth and start of the twentieth centuries acted as breaks on the inevitability of a Proletarian Revolution - more time off; limiting working hours; minimum wage legislation; etc actually reduced the impetus towards the Revolution.
If this theory is true, then there is an irony in those who scare talk about current Marxism because they want to rid the world of those Socialist ideals, like Minimum wages and limiting working hours, thus speeding up the possibility of a Proletarian Revolution.
reply
mrdeanvincent
These videos are so important. More people need to have a better understanding of the pros and cons of other systems of governance, ownership, economics, etc. The current way is not necessarily the best way. Sometimes the best way forward requires some changes. Marxism probably isn't the answer, but it's important for people to learn how much communism (and even socialism) has been unreasonably demonised by 80 years of US hegemony. Most of us are so deeply embedded in capitalism that we don't even recognise its ubiquitous propaganda.
reply
These videos are so important. More people need to have a better understanding of the pros and cons of other systems of governance, ownership, economics, etc. The current way is not necessarily the best way. Sometimes the best way forward requires some changes. Marxism probably isn't the answer, but it's important for people to learn how much communism (and even socialism) has been unreasonably demonised by 80 years of US hegemony. Most of us are so deeply embedded in capitalism that we don't even recognise its ubiquitous propaganda.
reply
yannak. 3894
From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like good heads of the household, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition. - Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (1894)
reply
From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like good heads of the household, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition. - Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (1894)
reply
t. nysted4146
I kind of suspect USA is due a revolution similar to what Marx predicted to take down capitalists and perhaps take over the means of production. Not a communist revolution, because Americans like their liberties, but similar. A student of mine looked into Georgism and I have to admit it felt kind of right for the USA post-civil war2. Only real spark needed is Trump not delivering on his promises. Because his voters are those downtrodden masses Marx talked about.
reply
I kind of suspect USA is due a revolution similar to what Marx predicted to take down capitalists and perhaps take over the means of production. Not a communist revolution, because Americans like their liberties, but similar. A student of mine looked into Georgism and I have to admit it felt kind of right for the USA post-civil war2. Only real spark needed is Trump not delivering on his promises. Because his voters are those downtrodden masses Marx talked about.
reply
crash_course
The idea of applying democratic and republican ideals to the economy should not be viewed as controversial. Capitalism is inherently authoritarian and autocratic, concentrating power in the hands of a few. We must recognize this reality and work to make the economy more democratic by empowering workers through cooperatives and giving them ownership and control over their workplaces. We ought to try to maximize freedom whenever and wherever possible.
reply
The idea of applying democratic and republican ideals to the economy should not be viewed as controversial. Capitalism is inherently authoritarian and autocratic, concentrating power in the hands of a few. We must recognize this reality and work to make the economy more democratic by empowering workers through cooperatives and giving them ownership and control over their workplaces. We ought to try to maximize freedom whenever and wherever possible.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
