Obama sought out marxist professors when he was in college. And was introduced to some communist activist at age 10! This is why Obummer is trying to "spread the wealth around" because he was brainwashed at such a young age. This is why he bacame prsident because he convinced all the bums of his thinking.
@Kharnnate Oh shut the fuck up and put your head in the sand if you don't want to see the naked facts. HE IS A MARXIST, COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST FRAUD!!!!
Sounds like where America is headed....for real,no freedom of religion,no freedom of speech,evolution crammed up the ass,with no competing theory,equal distribution of the wealth,liberalism,i could go on and on and on.
@FredFan8 The metaphoric hammer striking the nail and retreating made me think of what's been happening for the last few years. Just like the recent health care topic on contraceptives and the Catholic church. They will back off but come back later to get what they want.
@tean2269 No, below average. Therefore the majority of the population is kept from using resources. Only the elite people in the government or key people that are associated with the elite get control of the resources and securing those resources
Share the wealth, help me to fund one year of study. I'm asking 13000 people to donate just £1 - much less than a coffee, to help me in an opportunity that I've earned through hard work but cannot afford with all of my tax-paying family's savings put together. Twitter @lessthanacoffee, paypal littlegooddeed@gmail.com
Marxism is a critique of capitalism which starts of by acknowledging capitalism as a powerful progressive force that revolutionised change then goes on to criticize its weaknesses and flaws and what the future holds for post capitalism as a result of its flaws.
@Esoteric0714 Well I say you can turn water into Gold, it's just it has never been tried. (Just because it's has never been tried doesn't mean it works)
@simontimon2 True. Of course . . . just b/c it has never been tried doesn't mean that it doesn't work, either . . . imho: the key is voluntarism. That's why some of the more socialist kibbutzim in Israel function well under a socialist ideology. Those who are willing congregate in, and those who aren't congregate out.
The belief in Marxism seems to be very simular to that of a religion, as in it only work if you believe it works. The second people stop believing in it, it falls apart.
@Esoteric0714 These fat ugly FUCKs Kim ISung Ill and Kim Jong Ill are DEAD!!
Finally!
My sincere gratitude goes to our American friends. Thanks to them, the South Koreans enjoy capitalist FREEDOM and PROSPERITY, while thier NKorean compatriots have to suffer endlessly in COMMUNIST CONCENTRATION CAMP/SHITHOLE.
May Kim Jong Il/Sung Il BURN in HELL, where they belong!
@Esoteric0714 "yet he is so misrepresented and misunderstood"
Hahhahaah, dont you say ... aha, then you certainly will be able to explain (I pay you 1 million of my CAPITALISTIC euros, if u can) how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT ending up in a NIGHTMARE of POVERTY; DICTATORSHIP, Absence of FREEDOM, TERROR, IN-EFFICIENCY, FAMINES etc. +
But yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwn, you would be the first Marxist to use ARGUMENTS
Like all religions, Marxism is irrational, based on faith rather than science. Marxism had its Holy Books which were treated as Holy Scripture. Marx held and promoted some beliefs which were later disproved by science, for example Marx taught that human characteristics (we now know to be inherited through genetics) were caused by environmental factors. When scientists in 1930s Russia pointed this fact out, Stalin reacted by throwing them to the gulag, just like the Church imprisoned Galileo.
@simontimon2 Marxism is not irrational and it is not based on faith. There is no faith in Marxism there is only theories and systems. Marx's books were never regarded as holy or scripture. They are just books. Marx's main beliefs are the stuff in this video, criticism of capitalism, socialism and communism. None of these are disproved by science. And which of Marx's book contains information about the environmental factors and human characteristics. Stop thinking of Marxism as a faith.
Marxism is a perfect example of the excesses and horrors that result when religion is allowed to take over a society. Marxist acted just like the church had in Medieval Europe.
Just like the Church in Medieval Europe, the Marxist tortured and killed those who refused to adopt the official faith. Just like the Church, Marxist promoted the belief that governmental authorities were all-knowing, all-powerful, and the idea that refusing to bow to authority was a sin.
@simontimon2 Marxists don't promote the belief that governmental authorities were all-knowing, all-powerful. That was Stalin and Mao. And they had there own philosophy of socialism and communism different from Marx. They believed in political oppression and killing. Marxists do not believe in that stuff the people that do are Stalinists and Maoists. Why don't you actually learn more about marxism. The former socialist countries in eastern europe and USSR were all influenced by stalin not marx
@simontimon2 I don't think Marxists are exactly "poor". Most are middle class, and not really wealthy either. They choose this economic class because they know and that IS the honest way to live
@simontimon2 Not that I'm a Marxist or anything, but most of the leading Marxist did have good jobs. Lenin was a lawyer, Castro was a Lawyer, Guevara was a Doctor and Trotsky was going to study Mathematics until he got in to Revolutionary activities.
@kingmafi6699 These fat ugly FUCKs Kim ISung Ill and Kim Jong Ill are DEAD!!
Finally!
My sincere gratitude goes to our American friends. Thanks to them, the South Koreans enjoy capitalist FREEDOM and PROSPERITY, while thier NKorean compatriots have to suffer endlessly in COMMUNIST CONCENTRATION CAMP/SHITHOLE.
May Kim Jong Il/Sung Il BURN in HELL, where they belong!
eeeh ... i realize this is religious propaganda and probably shouldn't be taken too seriously, but correction: Marxist materialism is a philosophical one. It's not about 'matter is all that exists', it's fundamentally a humanist view that teaches that humans have dignity and need to meet their basic needs and still have time for leisure. Without meeting these MATERIAL needs, humans aren't human, it's inhumane in an industrial society that overproduces to have ppl starving etc ...
marxism is just a fucking cunt, mind you if i come across any of those so called university groups, tell me into my face about marxist well i will tell them straight fucking move on or otherwise i will get the fucking dogs onto you?
@ayadon1455 communism can not work (although in a philosophical point I would have to say it "MIGHT" work) because the system is flawed. Truth be it, we are NOT all equal. Some forms of work are more important than others. With communism there would be no intensive to work hard because you would be dragged down to the level of those who do not work hard, or may not work at all.
@amine17360 and Christians say Jesus or the Christian God is the greatest, and Buddhists say it's Buddha, and Jews, Shintoists, Hindus and all other religions believe they are right. They are all doing so well aren't they.
@roselizzie You realize if you have ever purchased anything in any market anywhere by your logic you should take your own life, (Do not even consider that please) Just saying your logic is severely flawed.
I don't see how this philosophy can be reconciled with Darwinism. I am a materialist and the materialist world is not fair. The natural world is vicious and that pushes natural selection and evolution. I don't like capitalism, but I can clearly see its parallels to evolution. Also, although it does have problems, It seems to be the most sustainable system we humans have come up with so far.
@elatus Reread your statement, you have contradicted yourself. Lets take capitalism off the books, because it never existed. Laissez faire however, is little to no state intervention. If you take that stand point, it proves Darwin's theory that the best will dominate, as long as there is no state or outside intervention. What we have now throughout the developed world is mercantilism, taking form the many to support the few. Not something i agree with; which, is something called capitalism.
we could use the earth cycles as a model. for the economic system. for the benefit for all people and the earth. we need balance. The wealthier a country is dos not mean that the people of that country are happy or healthy.
Marxism is the only economic system of the Enlightenment that was created with morality in mind, with capitalism, Profit and gain came first, then came morality on top of that, as a secondary pursuit.
@teag0odchapsqmark you think Marx Dictatorship of the Proletariat is some kind of morality? Marxism is the most simplistic ideology ever. Hate the richs, Love the poors. A lot of marxists born in bourgeois families, so they don't have a clue of how poor people really are, they don't realize that "poor people" are just humans, and all humans are evil.
In the USA we have this awesome document called the US Constitution that protects individual liberty and morality, unfortunately the US, both government and people have been ignoring it for quite some time now to the point that they do not even understand what individual liberty is.
So they allowed the merging of corporate and government powers resulting in our very messed up world we must separate corporate and government powers before we do anything.
@teag0odchapsqmark Marxism is immoral and capitalism is moral. Marxism bases what you get on need so your need is a first mortgage on the lives of your fellow man, i.e. you are a slave to your neighbor's needs. On the other hand, under capitalism what you get is based on what you do. Nobody steals your labor, you voluntarily sell it. If you have no skill, your labor is not worth much. Marxism was utopian in that people could be angels but politicians are the most evil in society. He was wrong.
@2xtrbo I'm neither Marxist or Capatilist as I don't understand enough about either to say I agree or disagree with either. Yet I don't see how I can walk in a field, reach a fence, and be told I cannot cross that fence because the land beyond, the grass, flowers, trees, bedrock and it's substrata - which was formed over hundreds of millions of years, belongs to the fifty year old human who "owns" it.
@teag0odchapsqmark Yup, communism is fantastics. I come from a country, that suffered 60 years of it. If you had an even slight idea about this system. Stalins regime killed approximetely 60 million people. Many of them, died due to starvation. Lenins actions proved to have a devastating effect on the russian economy between 1917 - 1921. Production, demand, supply, were all, at a record low, with millions of people dying from malnutrition, famine and murder. Yup, communism is great.
@MrFilipcee Yes, experience has shown the brutality of various forms of rule, whether so-called communist, capitalist, feudal, or ancient. But don't attribute what you experienced under those so-called communist regimes to the vision of Marx. Many people dislike Marx, but have never read him. It's funny, here is one of the most influential historical figures in the history of humankind, yet he is so misrepresented and misunderstood. The best way to learn about him, is to pick up his works and re
@iiNDiTC "yet he is so misrepresented and misunderstood"
Hahhahaah, dont you say ... aha, then you certainly will be able to explain (I pay you 1 million of my CAPITALISTIC euros, if u can) how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT ending up in a NIGHTMARE of POVERTY; DICTATORSHIP, Absence of FREEDOM, TERROR, IN-EFFICIENCY, FAMINES etc. +
But yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwn, you would be the first Marxist to use ARGUMENTS
@joaquinveyron What you are describing are the general effects or outcomes of State capitalist societies such as Russia and China. Marx never promoted a state capitalist society, nor did his vision of communism correspond to that of Mao's or Stalin's.
@iiNDiTC "his vision of communism correspond to that of Mao's or Stalin's. "
Dimwit, it certainly does correspond, provided if you have enough BRAINS, to really think through what Marx was babbling. Well, no one does expect left-wingers to have BRAINS.
@teag0odchapsqmark Marx was very much opposed to the moral philosophers of his day, especially Kant, J.S. Mills, etc. There are no notions of morality, justice, or equality to be found in Marx, rather, this is something that has been associated with Marxism. For example, in response to the Utopian socialists who depended upon a theory of morality, Engels wrote a nice little book called 'Socialism: Scientific and Utopian" in order to differentiate his and Marx's theory from other value-latent 1s
If something exists and there is conflict from it, you cant just remove that entire thing to expect to remove conflict. Like race, and classes, they expect to just erase it and force people to not believe in it, but conflict still arises, because those things came about naturally anyway, and cant just be ignored. Its almost like a cop out. Its childish. marxism is simple and stupid, it just says "if something aint working, destroy it and never allow it to come about again" until you are slaves
Well, Ideas are physical in that an Idea can be described in terms of chemical composition. Particularly the fact that your brain is made of chemicals. Saying ideas are not physical is like saying a moving car has nothing to do with motion. Ideas are circumstances of the chemicals in your brain, just like the motion is a circumstance of the car.
@heeh2 true! the brain of made of chemicals and we are persuaded by them. I cannot see what you are thinking of dos that mean that you are not thinking of something?. we still must manifest in to a physical perception of reality. how else would we test these theory and ideas?. Do you value your car and house for example. if not then materialism is not everything to you. can you pick up an idea in physical form no. I see what you are saying. really is perception not nauseously physical
I can only tell you that you don't understand naturalism (materialism). There is no point where our thoughts end and our bodies begin, our thoughts are apart of our bodies. Thought is a function of the brain just like motion is the function of a car, I really have no illustration more simple than that one. I'm also having a hard time understanding some of what you write.
@heeh2 sorry for the spelling. I do not see everything as materialism. I agree. that our thoughts are apart of our bodies and that our thoughts are infinite. at least temporarily. we are finite. when we die our consciousness also die with use. Is this materialism going with use when we die. what happens when we die do we become spirits as many cultures suggest?. as an atheist my honest conclusion is that we need some form of metaphysics or Allegory as a way of balance.
The part about "Thesis and Antithesis" leading to "Synthesis", I can agree with... it sounds very Capitalistic! Like two competing products in the market, battling for the custody of their customer's loyalty. And then, another product comes along that bolsters the successes, while avoiding and/or correcting the shortcomings of the former two. Rendering the former two obsolete. And, temporarily becoming the "new idea" before retiring to the ranks of "Thesis or Antithesis" again!
@GananoqueFilms first of all, Capitalism as in treu free market capitalism has never existed either. it's not a free market when the Government has a monopoly on the Currency so that it can print out as much as it wants to fund projects. and the corporatist-state relationship is not a part of free-market capitalism. so neither capitalism nor marxism have truly come to be. mostly. and "probably more than we can count"? name one nation with a mass graves filled by free market interactions. not one
The American Historical Review, among the oldest and most prestigious academic journals in the United States, has condemned Service’s biography of Trotsky, saying that it "fails to meet the basic standards of historical scholarship". The review has explicitly endorsed the critique of Service's book by David North, the chairman of both the Socialist Equality Party in the United States and the international editorial board of the World Socialist Web Site.
Marxism just makes the poor feel like they are getting a good deal but in reality it just as bad as capitalism. Simply put, it is just another form of people ruling over people.
in a world completly blinded by cultural marxism europeans must not forget who they are, remeber your fathers who came befor you and fought for you, never give up your birthright, never stop fighting for our survival.
@GananoqueFilms Genesis 25;23, and 27;38-41 promises the Gentiles to the Jews as their slaves and slave soldiers, and gives an incentive to exterminate the Gentiles simply because they dare resent their fate.
This video is surprisingly accurate for something made by creationists. The only glaring error I can find is that Marx largely abandoned the idea of Hegelian synthesis in favor of an ever-expanding opposition (and unity) between opposites, meaning no final synthesis. See Das Kapital for a prime example. Also I'm dubious about the hammer and nail analogy, but otherwise it's a decent video.
For Non-Communists who do not understand Communism (and may have been taught about it FALSELY in school, etc) please read this copy of the original Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx for a proper definition of the political theory and how it works and what it means exactly:
I agree, besides, the sovjet union was a State Capitalist system, comparing that to socialism is missing the point. Socialism is essentially this: "every persons right to free expression, labor and life without the consquences of this affecting others right to the same". (horribly put but still, thats me, and not the socialistic ideal). Ofcourse if a current system is threatened by these ideas, naturally it would be ideal to call the sovjets socialistic.
Useless video, first off, you cant talk about Marx, then talk about marxist-lenninists. To me whats a really useful tool you'll find in capital is the labor theory of value and how that can make you understand the motivation of a capitalistic mode of production. The analogies used in this video is just lolcopter.
I know this is "ad hominem" but...Can someone also explain to me why anyone would follow the economic philosophy of a guy who throughout his life refused to get a job, even though he had a wife and SEVEN CHILDREN?!
@gwapigs So the answer is because marxists are idiots. Can you try answering my comment before that one? Any dialectical materialist should be a capitalist. Marxism stalls progress.
dialectical materialism predicts the inevitable failure of a capitalist mode of production - the same way it explained the historical failure of primitive communism, and feudalism. as long as class contradiction is being exposed (as it inevitably will since capitalism feeds inequality), proletarian revolutions will happen.
why would a person who really understands dialectical materialism want capitalism?
@gwapigs "dialectical materialism predicts the inevitable failure of a capitalist mode of production"
How? Dialectics says that progress is brought on by conflict. Capitalism is all about conflict and competition. The struggle between the American and Soviet space programs brought humanity to the moon. Also, how was antiquity "primitive communism" if it had slavery? And it didn't fail, it evolved. Without slavery, there would've been no metallurgy. We'd still be in the stone age.
@KayBeeEee1983 it evolved? meh. we can also use that term as long as we mean it as 'taking up of a new form brought about by need'
class conflict is different from competition; the proletariat does not compete with the bourgeoisie. you do not need to compete for progress - do you study only because you want to have higher grades than your classmates?
about slavery giving birth to metallurgy, correlation does not imply causation; the number of pirates went down as global temperature rises... :/
@gwapigs You don't study to get better grades than your classmates, but you do to, in the future, get better JOBS than your classmates.
I thought the bourgeoisie and proletariat did compete for a larger "piece of the pie". The bourgeoisie wants to keep wages as low as possible to keep profit margins high. The proletariat form unions and go on strike to raise wages.
Mining is dangerous, even today. In antiquity, no one would've mined ore unless they were forced to by threat of torture.
@KayBeeEee1983 it simply states the observation that at every point of history (or whatever) there is conflict, specifically, of class. key to understanding dialectical materialism is the thesis-antithesis-synthesis - thesis is a positive claim; antithesis, its negative; and synthesis the "answer" that considers both. and obviously, a classless society would be the "answer" to class conflict. mind that class is not the only conflict possible, another type of conflict, most probably, will arise.
@gwapigs In my opinion, the middle class (small business owners and skilled laborers) is the synthesis of bourgeoisie and proletariat conflict, not a classless society. The middle class does not have to worry about the BS of the conflict between the other two classes. In general, small business owners don't have to worry about their workers going on strike and disrupting production. In general, skilled laborers don't have to worry about low, unlivable wages.
@KayBeeEee1983 yes. the "middle class" is, in a way, the synthesis. however, they are too are in danger of being pulled down lower the class ladder. as the old saying goes; the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. the only way the "middle class" can really not care about the proletariat is when everybody is middle class - that is, a classless society.
@KayBeeEee1983 in a classless society, everyone can already dismiss caring for the proletariat, since there will already be no proletariat - obviously, there is already no class.
@gwapigs There will always be proleteriats, what about those people who gamble their salary away and end up begging or doing cheap jobs in order to get a bread?
@KayBeeEee1983 lol. epic capitalist alienation. you do not study to get hired, you study to learn! and not learning just to get hired, you study to answer your questions. studying only to get a job alienates you as a human - and defeats its purpose.
no. the capitalist can have no other means of profit other than exploiting labor values. therefore, the proletariat's demand for higher wages is simply them asking for enough compensation.
mining exists even before history did. also, overstatement.
@gwapigs "you do not study to get hired, you study to learn!"
epic marxist delusion. People go to college to specifically learn about their future occupation. People want to go to Ivy League schools because they (supposedly) have better facilities, but also because Yale looks better on a resume than University of Phoenix.
"you study to answer your questions."
No, you go on wikipedia to answer your questions. You don't spend thousands of dollars for college just for the fun of learning.
@KayBeeEee1983 see capitalism has changed its purpose. profit motive is unreliable. the moment you study to just earn is the moment you become a machine. since you don't have the security of doing what you passionately want, you become a slave
in a classless society, there's no need for such. man can be a doctor in the morning, critic in the afternoon, and an artist at night; maximizing his passion, energy, and the very essence of him being a man - since economic security is already provided
@gwapigs It's not an overstatement to say that there would be no metallurgy w/o slavery. In our age of advanced technology, it's STILL incredibly dangerous to be a miner. Imagine how dangerous it must've been in the bronze age w/o electricity or machinery. It was evil, but it was necessary. BTW, I'm not capitalist & the US is not truly capitalistic anymore. The transition began with T.Roosevelt & ended with FDR. We are socialist now, we just don't say that because it has a bad connotation.
@KayBeeEee1983 no. we can not predict anything. assuming that slavery did not exist, there is no way we would know what would've happened in its place. else you assume that the events happening after slavery shall happen too had it not existed.
and yes, America is not capitalist, not because it is socialist, but because it is imperialist. I do not understand how in the world you arrived with your conclusion, but it kinda disappointed me.
@gwapigs Again, your first part is wrong and i've already explained why. No one would mine ore without being forced to.
You are predicting economic security in a classless system. Maybe you should follow your own advice about predictions.
I don't believe you know what imperialism is. It's not an economic system. I also don't think you know anything about American history either. We may have been imperialist in the 19th century when we were still capitalist, but not anymore.
no. we have different cases. you are trying to predict what would happen HAD SLAVERY NOT EXISTED, you are trying to replace a fragment of history with a prediction - which as I said, is impossible. I on the other hand, explains what ought to happen, clearly, in the future, if there are no classes
besides, economic security for everyone (egalitarianism) is a primary goal of a classless society.
then what is it? care to explain why America is socialist? lol
@gwapigs "you are trying to predict what would happen HAD SLAVERY NOT EXISTED"
No, that's not at all what i'm doing. I'm saying slavery was inevitable because there would be no metallurgy without slavery. All you have to do is study the history of Native Americans to see how a society progresses without metallurgy. It doesn't, really. It remains in "primitive communism"
@gwapigs Egalitarianism is primitive communism. It means equality, but that doesn't equal economic security. Maybe USA is not true socialism since we don't have a totally planned economy, but we're not pure capitalism either. We are a "social democracy". We have laws to make sure big business doesn't get out of hand. Monopolies/Trusts are illegal. We have welfare and social security. We have the Federal Reserve System. After WW2, certainly, the USSR was much more imperialistic than the USA.
@KayBeeEee1983 yes. just because you exaggeratedly talk about subjective opinions as if they were facts doesn't mean whatever you say has no merit. an asshole can still say the truth.
Can someone please explain to me why a "dialectical materialist" would favor communism? That seems like a philosophy much more suited to capitalism. Capitalism thrives on competition, communism tries to irradicate competition. Capitalists work only for themselves and their own immediate goals without thinking about the good of the whole, communists work for a force that they can't see or experience firsthand (the state).
@GananoqueFilms Communism has never existed either. What the world CALLS Communism is actually a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", just a phase in the process of conversion to true Communism.
All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary holocaust. ["world storm" ? J.D.] For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary. ...these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character ... [A general war will] wipe out all these racial trash
Surely if we are to use the Dialectic then the idea of true communism is opposed by the "democracy"/capitalism - therefore there is a need to find a golden mean between the two.
Hegel and his dialectical materialism themselves are flawed in that they reduce all history and science to theses, antitheses and syntheses. Not only this, but Marxism itself reduces all class struggle merely to economic fields...racial, social, or religious struggles are left unrepresented. Marxism's reduction of history into three major periods is also flatly reductionist. Marxism is severely flawed in theory and practice.
By understanding those three forms, we are able to understand human history to be contradictory. We have two classes that have counterposed interests, living together, struggling against one another. This means that, for whatever happens, it has several contradictory factors inside of it. The dialectics are the best method for studying human history, but only if they are materialistic.
But theses and antitheses can be looked at relatively from either point of view: this is the key errance of the Hegelian dialectic. The dialectic is rendered irrelevant because either side of a conflict could be seen as the thesis or antithesis, thus also rendering the muddling of the perception of the synthesis (i.e. the Treaty of Versailles) Not to mention, the idea of Hegel's "ideal" is quite indistinguishable from God, posing a severe contrdaiction to prescribed atheism
@saufunnom For example, let's say I wanted to explain why the American Revolution happened. Firstly, there were contradictory class forces at hand, and they were struggling against one another for supremacy; this is true. Secondly, these struggles were based on materialist reasons, ie land and money and who was able to get what from the colonies; they were not based on idealistic reasons, eg religion and philiosophy. No other science but materialist dialectics can explain human history properly.
Again, to reduce historical demographics into "classes" trivializes them inherently. To label the Americans or the British during the Revolutionary War as simply "class forces" reduces them to one of millions of other historical incidences: the rash reductionism I speak of.
Ownership of land and concepts such as money are themselves contrary to materialism: they exist hypothetically, and only affect the material world vicariously, through human manipulation.
@saufunnom Classes are how people group themselves in politics! People can claim all these alternative, like nationalism and racialism, but when politics hits the fan, people group into classes; this is the fact, and a studying of history shows this.
During the Great Depression, the poor and working class were on one side, the rich on the other. During the Russian Revolution, the same two sides took place in a battle.
All history has shown to be about classes, the evidence is massive.
To reduce everything to "classes" is absurd in just how it reduces all history to nothingness. Marx's yet more perverted version, in which economic classes are the sole classes, is yet more skewed. The nationalism of Gavrilo Princip is what acted as a catalyst to WWI: nationhood cannot be reduced to a class, unless perhaps geographical.
Whether Hegel's or Marx's dialect it be, it is a theory of everything: thus, a theory of anything: thus, it is a theory of nothing.
Further, a major catalyst to the Revolutionary War was a hypothetical (that is, not material) occurrence: Americans were perturbed by not being represented in the British parliament (a hypothetical dispute) and being taxed anyway (more hypotheticals). It only became material when humans manipulated the means of their environments to wage war for and against independence.
@saufunnom Money is a symbolic representation of the wealth of society; its symbolic nature does not disprove its role to play in material reality. Workers only eat because they earn money.
Yes, money may be just paper, but key questions in how forces of struggle are carried out, and how they can be affected by material needs. For example, workers go on strike, demanding a pay rise, so that they can buy more material bread to eat.
Money may be symbolic, but it still plays a role within society
You say "Money is a symbolic representation of the wealth of society". Is not a symbolic representation immaterial? A subsequent material impact by immaterial economic/ideological forces (or whatever else have you) cannot be encapsulated just as "materialism". Once again, through deductive logic you will deduce that this too is a "theory of nothing", by being a "theory of anything".
Money stretches beyond paper. Economics incorporates many purely theoretical ideas.
I'm afraid this isn't Marxism. It's just pissed off Christianity.
PlurSaveTheRave 3 weeks ago 5
Obama sought out marxist professors when he was in college. And was introduced to some communist activist at age 10! This is why Obummer is trying to "spread the wealth around" because he was brainwashed at such a young age. This is why he bacame prsident because he convinced all the bums of his thinking.
MrConservative95 4 weeks ago
@MrConservative95 Get your conservative, troll garbage out of here.
Kharnnate 1 day ago
@Kharnnate Oh shut the fuck up and put your head in the sand if you don't want to see the naked facts. HE IS A MARXIST, COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST FRAUD!!!!
MrConservative95 1 day ago
Sounds like where America is headed....for real,no freedom of religion,no freedom of speech,evolution crammed up the ass,with no competing theory,equal distribution of the wealth,liberalism,i could go on and on and on.
FredFan8 4 weeks ago
@FredFan8 Why would you want a competing theory for evolution?
Nebster173 4 weeks ago
@FredFan8 The metaphoric hammer striking the nail and retreating made me think of what's been happening for the last few years. Just like the recent health care topic on contraceptives and the Catholic church. They will back off but come back later to get what they want.
metalandsportsgaming 2 weeks ago
So we should all be equal?
Just average?
tean2269 1 month ago
@tean2269 No, below average. Therefore the majority of the population is kept from using resources. Only the elite people in the government or key people that are associated with the elite get control of the resources and securing those resources
metalandsportsgaming 2 weeks ago
I don't know about his views on economics, but you can't argue with Marx on who has the best beard.
BLARGHALT 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Share the wealth, help me to fund one year of study. I'm asking 13000 people to donate just £1 - much less than a coffee, to help me in an opportunity that I've earned through hard work but cannot afford with all of my tax-paying family's savings put together. Twitter @lessthanacoffee, paypal littlegooddeed@gmail.com
Gooddeedday 1 month ago
You can't really argue with dialectic materialism.
Danarchistic1 1 month ago
ok this video has nothing to do with there governance, but just there gay world view of life.
fargonbastedge 2 months ago
Please watch "The Bloody History of Communism (1 of 14)" - this will open your eyes!!!!!
worldchangeNOW2012 2 months ago
The ideology marxism is very similar to that of a rapist, because it is the belief of force and violence over others.
simontimon2 2 months ago
@simontimon2
No that's what capitalism is.
Enforcement of private property through violence.
kingmafi6699 2 months ago
@kingmafi6699 No that's what marxism is.
Enforcement of state property through violence
simontimon2 2 months ago
@simontimon2
Marxism is a set of philosophies.
Whoever chooses to use violence to oppress others will be overthrown no matter what ideology or mode of thinking they claim to operate under.
Reactionaries can never suppress human consciousness.
kingmafi6699 2 months ago
@kingmafi6699
Give me one example of a working marxist society
simontimon2 2 months ago
@simontimon2
There is no such things as a "Marxist" society.
Marxism is a critique of capitalism which starts of by acknowledging capitalism as a powerful progressive force that revolutionised change then goes on to criticize its weaknesses and flaws and what the future holds for post capitalism as a result of its flaws.
kingmafi6699 2 months ago
@kingmafi6699 So marxism doesn't work
simontimon2 2 months ago
@simontimon2 No, Marxism has never been tried. (Although some kibbutzim in Israel come close)
Esoteric0714 2 months ago
@Esoteric0714 Well I say you can turn water into Gold, it's just it has never been tried. (Just because it's has never been tried doesn't mean it works)
simontimon2 2 months ago
@simontimon2 True. Of course . . . just b/c it has never been tried doesn't mean that it doesn't work, either . . . imho: the key is voluntarism. That's why some of the more socialist kibbutzim in Israel function well under a socialist ideology. Those who are willing congregate in, and those who aren't congregate out.
Esoteric0714 2 months ago
So is there a way to turn water into gold?
The belief in Marxism seems to be very simular to that of a religion, as in it only work if you believe it works. The second people stop believing in it, it falls apart.
simontimon2 2 months ago
@simontimon2 Kinda like democracy, huh?
Esoteric0714 2 months ago
@Esoteric0714 As long as there's enough money to bribe more then half of the voting population
simontimon2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Esoteric0714 These fat ugly FUCKs Kim ISung Ill and Kim Jong Ill are DEAD!!
Finally!
My sincere gratitude goes to our American friends. Thanks to them, the South Koreans enjoy capitalist FREEDOM and PROSPERITY, while thier NKorean compatriots have to suffer endlessly in COMMUNIST CONCENTRATION CAMP/SHITHOLE.
May Kim Jong Il/Sung Il BURN in HELL, where they belong!
Only a dead commie is a good commie!
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Esoteric0714 "yet he is so misrepresented and misunderstood"
Hahhahaah, dont you say ... aha, then you certainly will be able to explain (I pay you 1 million of my CAPITALISTIC euros, if u can) how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT ending up in a NIGHTMARE of POVERTY; DICTATORSHIP, Absence of FREEDOM, TERROR, IN-EFFICIENCY, FAMINES etc. +
But yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwn, you would be the first Marxist to use ARGUMENTS
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@simontimon2 Marxism is not like a religion. It is a political, sociological and economical philosophy.
filipjovanovic1 2 months ago
Like all religions, Marxism is irrational, based on faith rather than science. Marxism had its Holy Books which were treated as Holy Scripture. Marx held and promoted some beliefs which were later disproved by science, for example Marx taught that human characteristics (we now know to be inherited through genetics) were caused by environmental factors. When scientists in 1930s Russia pointed this fact out, Stalin reacted by throwing them to the gulag, just like the Church imprisoned Galileo.
simontimon2 2 months ago
@simontimon2 Marxism is ATHEIST!!!
mathsprofessional 2 months ago
@mathsprofessional It is a cult that has no god, it is based on faith rather than science
simontimon2 2 months ago
@simontimon2 Marxism is not irrational and it is not based on faith. There is no faith in Marxism there is only theories and systems. Marx's books were never regarded as holy or scripture. They are just books. Marx's main beliefs are the stuff in this video, criticism of capitalism, socialism and communism. None of these are disproved by science. And which of Marx's book contains information about the environmental factors and human characteristics. Stop thinking of Marxism as a faith.
filipjovanovic1 2 months ago
Marxism is a perfect example of the excesses and horrors that result when religion is allowed to take over a society. Marxist acted just like the church had in Medieval Europe.
Just like the Church in Medieval Europe, the Marxist tortured and killed those who refused to adopt the official faith. Just like the Church, Marxist promoted the belief that governmental authorities were all-knowing, all-powerful, and the idea that refusing to bow to authority was a sin.
simontimon2 2 months ago
@simontimon2 Marxists don't promote the belief that governmental authorities were all-knowing, all-powerful. That was Stalin and Mao. And they had there own philosophy of socialism and communism different from Marx. They believed in political oppression and killing. Marxists do not believe in that stuff the people that do are Stalinists and Maoists. Why don't you actually learn more about marxism. The former socialist countries in eastern europe and USSR were all influenced by stalin not marx
filipjovanovic1 2 months ago
Followers of Marxs have the intellectual capacity of a preacher
simontimon2 2 months ago
@simontimon2 No they don't watch Marxist Education. Most of all university and college students are Marxists. Marxism thrives amoung smart people.
filipjovanovic1 2 months ago
@filipjovanovic1 If Marxist are so smart, why are they poor?
how come they protest over spending cuts.
Can't even survive with-out government hand outs, people like you would stave to death in the wild, with-out others to leach off.
simontimon2 2 months ago
Comment removed
filipjovanovic1 2 months ago
@filipjovanovic1 If they're so smart, why are they poor?
Only liberal arts Students believe in Marxism.
Find me a Surgeon, Engineers,Geologist who believes in marxism.
simontimon2 2 months ago
Comment removed
filipjovanovic1 2 months ago 3
@filipjovanovic1 If Marxists new "how the world works," then wouldn't they use that that knowledge to become weathy?
Yet they are poor.
I am led by reason and reason only!!!
simontimon2 2 months ago
Comment removed
filipjovanovic1 2 months ago
@simontimon2 I don't think Marxists are exactly "poor". Most are middle class, and not really wealthy either. They choose this economic class because they know and that IS the honest way to live
owenivor 1 month ago 8
@simontimon2 Not that I'm a Marxist or anything, but most of the leading Marxist did have good jobs. Lenin was a lawyer, Castro was a Lawyer, Guevara was a Doctor and Trotsky was going to study Mathematics until he got in to Revolutionary activities.
mdotty42 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@simontimon2 "Marxism is the only economic system .... with morality in mind"
Really?? ;.-) :-)
This is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
More even if you consider the RESULTS of such a system: Marxism ALWAYS led to FAMINES; POVERTY; DICTATORSHIPS, TERROR, UN-FREEDOM.
You must be KIDDING!! :-)
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@simontimon2 Are you fucking stupid?
chris96kalonji 1 month ago
@chris96kalonji Are you an Adult that lives with his parents?
simontimon2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@filipjovanovic1 "Marx never promoted a state capitalist society"##
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn ... Dimwit, but a state communist society is the EXACT and DIRECT consequences of Marx "vision", namely:
- abolition of the free market system
- abolition of private property/entreprises
- material "equality"
- "classless" society.
If you dont think so, feel free to prove it. I pay you € 1,000,000 if you can ...
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kingmafi6699 These fat ugly FUCKs Kim ISung Ill and Kim Jong Ill are DEAD!!
Finally!
My sincere gratitude goes to our American friends. Thanks to them, the South Koreans enjoy capitalist FREEDOM and PROSPERITY, while thier NKorean compatriots have to suffer endlessly in COMMUNIST CONCENTRATION CAMP/SHITHOLE.
May Kim Jong Il/Sung Il BURN in HELL, where they belong!
Only a dead commie is a good commie!
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
This is frankly more propaganda than actual marxist theory
Udontgetmymetal 3 months ago
eeeh ... i realize this is religious propaganda and probably shouldn't be taken too seriously, but correction: Marxist materialism is a philosophical one. It's not about 'matter is all that exists', it's fundamentally a humanist view that teaches that humans have dignity and need to meet their basic needs and still have time for leisure. Without meeting these MATERIAL needs, humans aren't human, it's inhumane in an industrial society that overproduces to have ppl starving etc ...
BoricuaChiTown 3 months ago
I agree with the philosophy of Marx only in his critique of religion and his description of why it is an unending argument.
reasonableaustin 3 months ago
marxism is just a fucking cunt, mind you if i come across any of those so called university groups, tell me into my face about marxist well i will tell them straight fucking move on or otherwise i will get the fucking dogs onto you?
Brutalbreed1 3 months ago
Marxism is worthless.
SagansDream 4 months ago
I do not agree with materialism however the majoroty of communism can and will solve many problems in our world we will all be equal.
ayadon1455 4 months ago
@ayadon1455 communism can not work (although in a philosophical point I would have to say it "MIGHT" work) because the system is flawed. Truth be it, we are NOT all equal. Some forms of work are more important than others. With communism there would be no intensive to work hard because you would be dragged down to the level of those who do not work hard, or may not work at all.
reasonableaustin 3 months ago
the red armies are moving forward
lianshen5011 4 months ago
HEY LENIN AND CARL MARX... YOU ARE LIARS
MATTER IS NOT OBJECTVE REALITY GIVEN TO US IN SESATION (BOLLSHIT)
But reality(in this life) is just an electrical signal interpreted by the brain (limited power)
Believing in god and the unseen is more truthful!!
Allah is the greatest and Lenin and Carl Marx are the smallest
people like carl marx had to destroy the pillars of human society.
amine17360 4 months ago
@amine17360 If allah was so smart and great why did he send his prophet later then the christian god?
Doesn't sound so smart to me
superguy911 4 months ago
@amine17360 and Christians say Jesus or the Christian God is the greatest, and Buddhists say it's Buddha, and Jews, Shintoists, Hindus and all other religions believe they are right. They are all doing so well aren't they.
TheWatcherxx99 4 months ago
Anyone who support capitalism who be killed.Damed capitalists.
roselizzie 5 months ago
@roselizzie Your "sentence" demonstrates your intelligence.
imax1971 5 months ago
@roselizzie You realize if you have ever purchased anything in any market anywhere by your logic you should take your own life, (Do not even consider that please) Just saying your logic is severely flawed.
TheArcaneSanctum 4 months ago
hahahhaah
crankycactus 5 months ago
I don't see how this philosophy can be reconciled with Darwinism. I am a materialist and the materialist world is not fair. The natural world is vicious and that pushes natural selection and evolution. I don't like capitalism, but I can clearly see its parallels to evolution. Also, although it does have problems, It seems to be the most sustainable system we humans have come up with so far.
elatus 5 months ago
@elatus Reread your statement, you have contradicted yourself. Lets take capitalism off the books, because it never existed. Laissez faire however, is little to no state intervention. If you take that stand point, it proves Darwin's theory that the best will dominate, as long as there is no state or outside intervention. What we have now throughout the developed world is mercantilism, taking form the many to support the few. Not something i agree with; which, is something called capitalism.
asleeperj 5 months ago
Come on guys! We all know communist was written by Marx. Lenin was just an applicator of the theory!
UnitedPebbles 6 months ago
we could use the earth cycles as a model. for the economic system. for the benefit for all people and the earth. we need balance. The wealthier a country is dos not mean that the people of that country are happy or healthy.
boogerfly100 6 months ago
Marxism is the only economic system of the Enlightenment that was created with morality in mind, with capitalism, Profit and gain came first, then came morality on top of that, as a secondary pursuit.
teag0odchapsqmark 7 months ago 17
@teag0odchapsqmark you think Marx Dictatorship of the Proletariat is some kind of morality? Marxism is the most simplistic ideology ever. Hate the richs, Love the poors. A lot of marxists born in bourgeois families, so they don't have a clue of how poor people really are, they don't realize that "poor people" are just humans, and all humans are evil.
trifulquita15 6 months ago
@teag0odchapsqmark
Who's morality?
In the USA we have this awesome document called the US Constitution that protects individual liberty and morality, unfortunately the US, both government and people have been ignoring it for quite some time now to the point that they do not even understand what individual liberty is.
So they allowed the merging of corporate and government powers resulting in our very messed up world we must separate corporate and government powers before we do anything.
TheArcaneSanctum 4 months ago
@teag0odchapsqmark Marxism is immoral and capitalism is moral. Marxism bases what you get on need so your need is a first mortgage on the lives of your fellow man, i.e. you are a slave to your neighbor's needs. On the other hand, under capitalism what you get is based on what you do. Nobody steals your labor, you voluntarily sell it. If you have no skill, your labor is not worth much. Marxism was utopian in that people could be angels but politicians are the most evil in society. He was wrong.
2xtrbo 4 months ago
@2xtrbo I'm neither Marxist or Capatilist as I don't understand enough about either to say I agree or disagree with either. Yet I don't see how I can walk in a field, reach a fence, and be told I cannot cross that fence because the land beyond, the grass, flowers, trees, bedrock and it's substrata - which was formed over hundreds of millions of years, belongs to the fifty year old human who "owns" it.
TheWatcherxx99 4 months ago
@2xtrbo "Capitalism is moral"?????.....lets ask Dick Channey if He is "moral" LOL
juliansa74 3 months ago
@juliansa74 Dick Chaney is not capitalism. You are mixed up.
2xtrbo 3 months ago
@teag0odchapsqmark Yup, communism is fantastics. I come from a country, that suffered 60 years of it. If you had an even slight idea about this system. Stalins regime killed approximetely 60 million people. Many of them, died due to starvation. Lenins actions proved to have a devastating effect on the russian economy between 1917 - 1921. Production, demand, supply, were all, at a record low, with millions of people dying from malnutrition, famine and murder. Yup, communism is great.
MrFilipcee 3 months ago
@MrFilipcee Yes, experience has shown the brutality of various forms of rule, whether so-called communist, capitalist, feudal, or ancient. But don't attribute what you experienced under those so-called communist regimes to the vision of Marx. Many people dislike Marx, but have never read him. It's funny, here is one of the most influential historical figures in the history of humankind, yet he is so misrepresented and misunderstood. The best way to learn about him, is to pick up his works and re
iiNDiTC 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iiNDiTC "yet he is so misrepresented and misunderstood"
Hahhahaah, dont you say ... aha, then you certainly will be able to explain (I pay you 1 million of my CAPITALISTIC euros, if u can) how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT ending up in a NIGHTMARE of POVERTY; DICTATORSHIP, Absence of FREEDOM, TERROR, IN-EFFICIENCY, FAMINES etc. +
But yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwn, you would be the first Marxist to use ARGUMENTS
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@teag0odchapsqmark "Marxism is the only economic system .... with morality in mind"
Really?? ;.-) :-)
This is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
More even if you consider the RESULTS of such a system: Marxism ALWAYS led to FAMINES; POVERTY; DICTATORSHIPS, TERROR, UN-FREEDOM.
You must be KIDDING!! :-)
joaquinveyron 3 months ago
@joaquinveyron What you are describing are the general effects or outcomes of State capitalist societies such as Russia and China. Marx never promoted a state capitalist society, nor did his vision of communism correspond to that of Mao's or Stalin's.
iiNDiTC 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iiNDiTC "Marx never promoted a state capitalist society"##
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn ... Dimwit, but a state communist society is the EXACT and DIRECT consequences of Marx "vision", namely:
- abolition of the free market system
- abolition of private property/entreprises
- material "equality"
- "classless" society.
If you dont think so, feel free to prove it. I pay you € 1,000,000 if you can ...
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iiNDiTC "his vision of communism correspond to that of Mao's or Stalin's. "
Dimwit, it certainly does correspond, provided if you have enough BRAINS, to really think through what Marx was babbling. Well, no one does expect left-wingers to have BRAINS.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@teag0odchapsqmark Marx was very much opposed to the moral philosophers of his day, especially Kant, J.S. Mills, etc. There are no notions of morality, justice, or equality to be found in Marx, rather, this is something that has been associated with Marxism. For example, in response to the Utopian socialists who depended upon a theory of morality, Engels wrote a nice little book called 'Socialism: Scientific and Utopian" in order to differentiate his and Marx's theory from other value-latent 1s
iiNDiTC 2 months ago 3
Comment removed
boogerfly100 7 months ago
If something exists and there is conflict from it, you cant just remove that entire thing to expect to remove conflict. Like race, and classes, they expect to just erase it and force people to not believe in it, but conflict still arises, because those things came about naturally anyway, and cant just be ignored. Its almost like a cop out. Its childish. marxism is simple and stupid, it just says "if something aint working, destroy it and never allow it to come about again" until you are slaves
JoanBeatrington001 7 months ago
Interesting , everything is materialism? I don't think so. is an idea physical? no until we choose to manifest that idea.
boogerfly100 7 months ago
@boogerfly100
Well, Ideas are physical in that an Idea can be described in terms of chemical composition. Particularly the fact that your brain is made of chemicals. Saying ideas are not physical is like saying a moving car has nothing to do with motion. Ideas are circumstances of the chemicals in your brain, just like the motion is a circumstance of the car.
heeh2 7 months ago
@heeh2 true! the brain of made of chemicals and we are persuaded by them. I cannot see what you are thinking of dos that mean that you are not thinking of something?. we still must manifest in to a physical perception of reality. how else would we test these theory and ideas?. Do you value your car and house for example. if not then materialism is not everything to you. can you pick up an idea in physical form no. I see what you are saying. really is perception not nauseously physical
boogerfly100 7 months ago
@boogerfly100
I can only tell you that you don't understand naturalism (materialism). There is no point where our thoughts end and our bodies begin, our thoughts are apart of our bodies. Thought is a function of the brain just like motion is the function of a car, I really have no illustration more simple than that one. I'm also having a hard time understanding some of what you write.
heeh2 7 months ago
@heeh2 sorry for the spelling. I do not see everything as materialism. I agree. that our thoughts are apart of our bodies and that our thoughts are infinite. at least temporarily. we are finite. when we die our consciousness also die with use. Is this materialism going with use when we die. what happens when we die do we become spirits as many cultures suggest?. as an atheist my honest conclusion is that we need some form of metaphysics or Allegory as a way of balance.
boogerfly100 7 months ago
The part about "Thesis and Antithesis" leading to "Synthesis", I can agree with... it sounds very Capitalistic! Like two competing products in the market, battling for the custody of their customer's loyalty. And then, another product comes along that bolsters the successes, while avoiding and/or correcting the shortcomings of the former two. Rendering the former two obsolete. And, temporarily becoming the "new idea" before retiring to the ranks of "Thesis or Antithesis" again!
Insidapc 7 months ago
@Insidapc VERY GOOD Example !
cris750 7 months ago
look up this vid about communism:
"David Duke Communism and Zionism are NWO strategies"
TourRoyale 8 months ago
@GananoqueFilms first of all, Capitalism as in treu free market capitalism has never existed either. it's not a free market when the Government has a monopoly on the Currency so that it can print out as much as it wants to fund projects. and the corporatist-state relationship is not a part of free-market capitalism. so neither capitalism nor marxism have truly come to be. mostly. and "probably more than we can count"? name one nation with a mass graves filled by free market interactions. not one
Ravengaurd6 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The American Historical Review, among the oldest and most prestigious academic journals in the United States, has condemned Service’s biography of Trotsky, saying that it "fails to meet the basic standards of historical scholarship". The review has explicitly endorsed the critique of Service's book by David North, the chairman of both the Socialist Equality Party in the United States and the international editorial board of the World Socialist Web Site.
robharris38 8 months ago
Atheism eventually leads to stalinism, socialism, communism, marxist-leninism, maoism, racism, and ultimately totalitarianism.
Z3EALOT 8 months ago
@Z3EALOT Atheism? Cubans are allowed religion, its just the state doesn't have a specific religion.
ALL countries where religion has been a power has ended up with inquisitions and heresy trials.
machinehead5760 8 months ago
@Z3EALOT ahahahahahahaha yeah. sure....
Kkoperfild 7 months ago
Marxism just makes the poor feel like they are getting a good deal but in reality it just as bad as capitalism. Simply put, it is just another form of people ruling over people.
kenhakei 8 months ago
@GananoqueFilms
LIES
Stalin was a great communist.
This video is bull about the materialism part a little, not completely, but a marxist can see spirituality in something.
AtheismCentral 8 months ago
in a world completly blinded by cultural marxism europeans must not forget who they are, remeber your fathers who came befor you and fought for you, never give up your birthright, never stop fighting for our survival.
KumarZimmerman08 8 months ago
@GananoqueFilms Genesis 25;23, and 27;38-41 promises the Gentiles to the Jews as their slaves and slave soldiers, and gives an incentive to exterminate the Gentiles simply because they dare resent their fate.
foxrat123 9 months ago
@GananoqueFilms Marxism is a scam to incite people into revolution and class struggle. The purpose is to put Jews in power, and exterminate gentiles.
foxrat123 9 months ago
i eat my poo
ronmorris88 9 months ago
@ronmorris88 i as well, yummy poo
my44cosmicsnickers 9 months ago
thesis-capatalism anti thesis-communist ussr=america today =thesis Islamic facism -antithesis what comes next?
meronmotors 9 months ago
This video is surprisingly accurate for something made by creationists. The only glaring error I can find is that Marx largely abandoned the idea of Hegelian synthesis in favor of an ever-expanding opposition (and unity) between opposites, meaning no final synthesis. See Das Kapital for a prime example. Also I'm dubious about the hammer and nail analogy, but otherwise it's a decent video.
warmongerpro 9 months ago
Medieval times have been shown to be far more self-prosperous than today! So Marxism is wrong there.
NatDemUK 9 months ago
For Non-Communists who do not understand Communism (and may have been taught about it FALSELY in school, etc) please read this copy of the original Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx for a proper definition of the political theory and how it works and what it means exactly:
Lord123881 10 months ago
Socialist : group of ppl living in which there is no poverty.
Capitalism : A system that wages wars constantly to maintain its survival and remaining.
Lord123881 10 months ago
Thanks for explaining kinetic energy, bro.
davitodude 10 months ago
@GananoqueFilms
I agree, besides, the sovjet union was a State Capitalist system, comparing that to socialism is missing the point. Socialism is essentially this: "every persons right to free expression, labor and life without the consquences of this affecting others right to the same". (horribly put but still, thats me, and not the socialistic ideal). Ofcourse if a current system is threatened by these ideas, naturally it would be ideal to call the sovjets socialistic.
RipTheJackR 10 months ago
Useless video, first off, you cant talk about Marx, then talk about marxist-lenninists. To me whats a really useful tool you'll find in capital is the labor theory of value and how that can make you understand the motivation of a capitalistic mode of production. The analogies used in this video is just lolcopter.
RipTheJackR 10 months ago
free-market libertarianism.
anyway. the gene-centred view of evolution is far superior to punctuated equilibrium
Dawkins > Gould
but more importantly.
Bastiat > Marx
TrollForTuna 11 months ago
@TrollForTuna
"Bastiat > Marx"
You never read Marx? Marx his critique on the 'free-marketeers' is devastating.
pulsatingremedy 11 months ago 3
deep thoughts from the world's foremost thinkers!
Tampinu 11 months ago
I know this is "ad hominem" but...Can someone also explain to me why anyone would follow the economic philosophy of a guy who throughout his life refused to get a job, even though he had a wife and SEVEN CHILDREN?!
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 basically because it is an argument standing on a logical fallacy; ad hominem as you say. :P
gwapigs 1 year ago
@gwapigs So the answer is because marxists are idiots. Can you try answering my comment before that one? Any dialectical materialist should be a capitalist. Marxism stalls progress.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I'd skip the trolling part.
dialectical materialism predicts the inevitable failure of a capitalist mode of production - the same way it explained the historical failure of primitive communism, and feudalism. as long as class contradiction is being exposed (as it inevitably will since capitalism feeds inequality), proletarian revolutions will happen.
why would a person who really understands dialectical materialism want capitalism?
gwapigs 1 year ago
@gwapigs "dialectical materialism predicts the inevitable failure of a capitalist mode of production"
How? Dialectics says that progress is brought on by conflict. Capitalism is all about conflict and competition. The struggle between the American and Soviet space programs brought humanity to the moon. Also, how was antiquity "primitive communism" if it had slavery? And it didn't fail, it evolved. Without slavery, there would've been no metallurgy. We'd still be in the stone age.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 it evolved? meh. we can also use that term as long as we mean it as 'taking up of a new form brought about by need'
class conflict is different from competition; the proletariat does not compete with the bourgeoisie. you do not need to compete for progress - do you study only because you want to have higher grades than your classmates?
about slavery giving birth to metallurgy, correlation does not imply causation; the number of pirates went down as global temperature rises... :/
gwapigs 1 year ago
@gwapigs You don't study to get better grades than your classmates, but you do to, in the future, get better JOBS than your classmates.
I thought the bourgeoisie and proletariat did compete for a larger "piece of the pie". The bourgeoisie wants to keep wages as low as possible to keep profit margins high. The proletariat form unions and go on strike to raise wages.
Mining is dangerous, even today. In antiquity, no one would've mined ore unless they were forced to by threat of torture.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@gwapigs How does a classless society bring about progress if there is no conflict? That's what I don't get about Marxist dialectics.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 it simply states the observation that at every point of history (or whatever) there is conflict, specifically, of class. key to understanding dialectical materialism is the thesis-antithesis-synthesis - thesis is a positive claim; antithesis, its negative; and synthesis the "answer" that considers both. and obviously, a classless society would be the "answer" to class conflict. mind that class is not the only conflict possible, another type of conflict, most probably, will arise.
gwapigs 1 year ago
@gwapigs In my opinion, the middle class (small business owners and skilled laborers) is the synthesis of bourgeoisie and proletariat conflict, not a classless society. The middle class does not have to worry about the BS of the conflict between the other two classes. In general, small business owners don't have to worry about their workers going on strike and disrupting production. In general, skilled laborers don't have to worry about low, unlivable wages.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 yes. the "middle class" is, in a way, the synthesis. however, they are too are in danger of being pulled down lower the class ladder. as the old saying goes; the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. the only way the "middle class" can really not care about the proletariat is when everybody is middle class - that is, a classless society.
gwapigs 1 year ago
@gwapigs What do you mean "not care" about the proletariat?
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 in a classless society, everyone can already dismiss caring for the proletariat, since there will already be no proletariat - obviously, there is already no class.
gwapigs 1 year ago
@gwapigs Do i have to repeat myself? What are you talking about when you use the word "caring"?
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@gwapigs There will always be proleteriats, what about those people who gamble their salary away and end up begging or doing cheap jobs in order to get a bread?
Tampinu 11 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 lol. epic capitalist alienation. you do not study to get hired, you study to learn! and not learning just to get hired, you study to answer your questions. studying only to get a job alienates you as a human - and defeats its purpose.
no. the capitalist can have no other means of profit other than exploiting labor values. therefore, the proletariat's demand for higher wages is simply them asking for enough compensation.
mining exists even before history did. also, overstatement.
gwapigs 1 year ago
@gwapigs "you do not study to get hired, you study to learn!"
epic marxist delusion. People go to college to specifically learn about their future occupation. People want to go to Ivy League schools because they (supposedly) have better facilities, but also because Yale looks better on a resume than University of Phoenix.
"you study to answer your questions."
No, you go on wikipedia to answer your questions. You don't spend thousands of dollars for college just for the fun of learning.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 see capitalism has changed its purpose. profit motive is unreliable. the moment you study to just earn is the moment you become a machine. since you don't have the security of doing what you passionately want, you become a slave
in a classless society, there's no need for such. man can be a doctor in the morning, critic in the afternoon, and an artist at night; maximizing his passion, energy, and the very essence of him being a man - since economic security is already provided
gwapigs 1 year ago
@gwapigs Now I understand why you are totally disregarding everything I say. You're 16. You don't live in the USA, do you?
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@gwapigs That first part is totally wrong and I've already explained why.
"man can be a doctor in the morning, critic in the afternoon, and an artist at night"
That is possible already, in USA at least.
" the very essence of him being a man "
Look up pretentious in the dictionary.
"since economic security is already provided"
A classless, stateless society is anarchy, not communism. You will have even less economic security than in a capitalist system.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@gwapigs It's not an overstatement to say that there would be no metallurgy w/o slavery. In our age of advanced technology, it's STILL incredibly dangerous to be a miner. Imagine how dangerous it must've been in the bronze age w/o electricity or machinery. It was evil, but it was necessary. BTW, I'm not capitalist & the US is not truly capitalistic anymore. The transition began with T.Roosevelt & ended with FDR. We are socialist now, we just don't say that because it has a bad connotation.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 no. we can not predict anything. assuming that slavery did not exist, there is no way we would know what would've happened in its place. else you assume that the events happening after slavery shall happen too had it not existed.
and yes, America is not capitalist, not because it is socialist, but because it is imperialist. I do not understand how in the world you arrived with your conclusion, but it kinda disappointed me.
gwapigs 1 year ago
@gwapigs Again, your first part is wrong and i've already explained why. No one would mine ore without being forced to.
You are predicting economic security in a classless system. Maybe you should follow your own advice about predictions.
I don't believe you know what imperialism is. It's not an economic system. I also don't think you know anything about American history either. We may have been imperialist in the 19th century when we were still capitalist, but not anymore.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 again, overstatement
no. we have different cases. you are trying to predict what would happen HAD SLAVERY NOT EXISTED, you are trying to replace a fragment of history with a prediction - which as I said, is impossible. I on the other hand, explains what ought to happen, clearly, in the future, if there are no classes
besides, economic security for everyone (egalitarianism) is a primary goal of a classless society.
then what is it? care to explain why America is socialist? lol
gwapigs 1 year ago
@gwapigs "you are trying to predict what would happen HAD SLAVERY NOT EXISTED"
No, that's not at all what i'm doing. I'm saying slavery was inevitable because there would be no metallurgy without slavery. All you have to do is study the history of Native Americans to see how a society progresses without metallurgy. It doesn't, really. It remains in "primitive communism"
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@gwapigs Egalitarianism is primitive communism. It means equality, but that doesn't equal economic security. Maybe USA is not true socialism since we don't have a totally planned economy, but we're not pure capitalism either. We are a "social democracy". We have laws to make sure big business doesn't get out of hand. Monopolies/Trusts are illegal. We have welfare and social security. We have the Federal Reserve System. After WW2, certainly, the USSR was much more imperialistic than the USA.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@gwapigs Marx having a wife, numerous kids, and no job makes him a selfish piece of s---. Is that a logical fallacy too?
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@KayBeeEee1983 yes. just because you exaggeratedly talk about subjective opinions as if they were facts doesn't mean whatever you say has no merit. an asshole can still say the truth.
gwapigs 1 year ago
Can someone please explain to me why a "dialectical materialist" would favor communism? That seems like a philosophy much more suited to capitalism. Capitalism thrives on competition, communism tries to irradicate competition. Capitalists work only for themselves and their own immediate goals without thinking about the good of the whole, communists work for a force that they can't see or experience firsthand (the state).
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
@GananoqueFilms Communism has never existed either. What the world CALLS Communism is actually a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", just a phase in the process of conversion to true Communism.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
Marx wrote about dirtiness of slavic people and communists that were mostly slavic people believed in marx and hailed him as a god.
Harald136 1 year ago
All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary holocaust. ["world storm" ? J.D.] For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary. ...these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character ... [A general war will] wipe out all these racial trash
jowns0 1 year ago
Surely if we are to use the Dialectic then the idea of true communism is opposed by the "democracy"/capitalism - therefore there is a need to find a golden mean between the two.
jonnierev 1 year ago
@jonnierev Isn't democratic socialism right in the middle of the two?
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
WHY CAN't YOU JUST HIT THE NAIL WITH 1 SWING?!
naveslaikss 1 year ago
@GananoqueFilms
Hegel and his dialectical materialism themselves are flawed in that they reduce all history and science to theses, antitheses and syntheses. Not only this, but Marxism itself reduces all class struggle merely to economic fields...racial, social, or religious struggles are left unrepresented. Marxism's reduction of history into three major periods is also flatly reductionist. Marxism is severely flawed in theory and practice.
saufunnom 1 year ago
@saufunnom Hegel was an idealistic dialectician.
By understanding those three forms, we are able to understand human history to be contradictory. We have two classes that have counterposed interests, living together, struggling against one another. This means that, for whatever happens, it has several contradictory factors inside of it. The dialectics are the best method for studying human history, but only if they are materialistic.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood
But theses and antitheses can be looked at relatively from either point of view: this is the key errance of the Hegelian dialectic. The dialectic is rendered irrelevant because either side of a conflict could be seen as the thesis or antithesis, thus also rendering the muddling of the perception of the synthesis (i.e. the Treaty of Versailles) Not to mention, the idea of Hegel's "ideal" is quite indistinguishable from God, posing a severe contrdaiction to prescribed atheism
saufunnom 1 year ago
@saufunnom For example, let's say I wanted to explain why the American Revolution happened. Firstly, there were contradictory class forces at hand, and they were struggling against one another for supremacy; this is true. Secondly, these struggles were based on materialist reasons, ie land and money and who was able to get what from the colonies; they were not based on idealistic reasons, eg religion and philiosophy. No other science but materialist dialectics can explain human history properly.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood
Again, to reduce historical demographics into "classes" trivializes them inherently. To label the Americans or the British during the Revolutionary War as simply "class forces" reduces them to one of millions of other historical incidences: the rash reductionism I speak of.
Ownership of land and concepts such as money are themselves contrary to materialism: they exist hypothetically, and only affect the material world vicariously, through human manipulation.
saufunnom 1 year ago
@saufunnom Classes are how people group themselves in politics! People can claim all these alternative, like nationalism and racialism, but when politics hits the fan, people group into classes; this is the fact, and a studying of history shows this.
During the Great Depression, the poor and working class were on one side, the rich on the other. During the Russian Revolution, the same two sides took place in a battle.
All history has shown to be about classes, the evidence is massive.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood
To reduce everything to "classes" is absurd in just how it reduces all history to nothingness. Marx's yet more perverted version, in which economic classes are the sole classes, is yet more skewed. The nationalism of Gavrilo Princip is what acted as a catalyst to WWI: nationhood cannot be reduced to a class, unless perhaps geographical.
Whether Hegel's or Marx's dialect it be, it is a theory of everything: thus, a theory of anything: thus, it is a theory of nothing.
saufunnom 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood
Further, a major catalyst to the Revolutionary War was a hypothetical (that is, not material) occurrence: Americans were perturbed by not being represented in the British parliament (a hypothetical dispute) and being taxed anyway (more hypotheticals). It only became material when humans manipulated the means of their environments to wage war for and against independence.
saufunnom 1 year ago
@saufunnom Money is a symbolic representation of the wealth of society; its symbolic nature does not disprove its role to play in material reality. Workers only eat because they earn money.
Yes, money may be just paper, but key questions in how forces of struggle are carried out, and how they can be affected by material needs. For example, workers go on strike, demanding a pay rise, so that they can buy more material bread to eat.
Money may be symbolic, but it still plays a role within society
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood
You say "Money is a symbolic representation of the wealth of society". Is not a symbolic representation immaterial? A subsequent material impact by immaterial economic/ideological forces (or whatever else have you) cannot be encapsulated just as "materialism". Once again, through deductive logic you will deduce that this too is a "theory of nothing", by being a "theory of anything".
Money stretches beyond paper. Economics incorporates many purely theoretical ideas.
saufunnom 1 year ago