Historical materialism is a way of thought about our existence in some ways. For Marx, labour and work are the primal ways of existing, as it's the interpretation of our thoughts.
What we see in capitalism is what Marx called alienization from actual products. This is a thing to think about.
Re skiskiskiii-- This question turns out to be a very important question in the history of Marxist thought. On reflection, I realized that I always use the term "Historical Materialism" rather than "Dialectical Materialism," but couldn't remember why (if, indeed, I had a reason). When I consulted Bottomore's _Dictionary of Marxist Thought_, I saw why. Check out the entry on "Dialectical Materialism" from that work... I think it will be useful for you. Or email (rlstrick@mtu.edu) for pdf.
Many thanks for this very useful overview of what had seemd like a complicated concept (before you elucidated it here). Question: How does Historical Materialism differ from Dialectic Materialism? I assume that the former merely emphasises Marxist conceptualisations of history rather than more generally providing the theoretical framework for Marxist understanding of society? Is this correct? Or is it possible to ise the terms interchangeably? Many thanks,
Many thanks for this very useful overview of what had seemd like a complicated concept (before you elucidated it here). Question: How does Historical Materialism differ from Dialectic Materialism? I assume that the former merely emphasises Marxist conceptualisations of history rather than more generally providing the theoretical framework for Marxist understanding of society? Is this correct? Or is it possible to ise the terms interchangeably? Many thanks,
Many thanks for this very useful overview of what had seemd like a complicated concept (before you elucidated it here). Question: How does Historical Materialism differ from Dialectic Materialism? I assume that the former merely emphasises Marxist conceptualisations of history rather than more generally providing the theoretical framework for Marxist understanding of society? Is this correct? Or is it possible to ise the terms interchangeably? Many thanks,
The fact that communism is murder and dictatorship is NOT propaganda but proven in history. It killed over 100 million people. We don't have to read Marx books but search "Stalin","Pol Pot","Ceaucescu","Mao Zedong","Tiananmen square","Kim Jong Il" and "Slobodan Milosevic" to learn what communism is.
Most of the time classic lies. Music is an metaphor of this. Psychology of human being changes base on exchange among themselves and they would just behind their lies and leave other people that those are majority of thought of that time. If you find contradictions, please don't follow. It is just very basic.
Plus an introduction to and detailed explanation of how capitalism ex-propiated the term "equality" and changed it's original definition of "liberty" and replaced it for the meaning "uniformity" in it's facist tervigersation of the truth becomes necesary at this historical moment we living now...
Organizing the masses and finding out each and every one individual real talents in a honest way have proven to be the biggest challenge for us Soviets so far. Due to the auto-destructive mess that has been laid by capitalism in it's nature plus infiltrating agendas against real communism. This is a matter we should pay importance too, working on finding and fitting people's "likes" and "talents" in the socialist society...
Are you sure socialism is feasible?...it seems like working towards imaginary socialism instead of improving the human condition from where we are invites a myopic view and sets up a possible contradiction between socialist ideals, our values, and the goal of socialism. Moreover, it pressuposes that socialism is one thing and ignores the presuppositions and internalized fictions that colour how each of us understands reality.
I know what socialism and communism are. Your statements above make no argument as to their feasability. Marx never formulated a theory of how to structure such an economy. Morover, your narrow focus (which is not attirbutable to most Marxists or Marx himself) misses the fact that economics are an aspect of a larger unity, which has other elements and relations that must be considered in making such claims.
That's a somewhat rudimentary understanding of it, I suppose. I am not anti-Marxist but you seem somewhat naive. When I called you myopic, I followed by explaining you were ignoring everything except a small part of the economic relations. You aren't even giving economics their due, let alone philosophies, distribution, psychology, politics, law, programmatic strategies, social ontology, various institutions, global relationships, directives, cultural differences, intracultural differences...
u can use as many big flowery words as u like but all marxists argue for nationalistion of the key industries and banks and workers control. it is that simple.
when the means of production are in the democratic hands of the working class we can plan production for our needs. the incentive will be to work less, as technology advances, productivity increase. meaning it will take less time to produce what we need. the working day will therefore be consistently reduced until we only need to work
Actually, Marxists do not argue for the nationalization of industry. Marx himself was adiment that socialism could never be sustained in a country. He argued for global socialism. So, quite simply, you are dead wrong. As far as "planning production for our needs" goes, you are brushing over an incredibly complex issue Marxists still debate to this day. Also, you use words like democratic, production, needs, incentive, etc. with little respect for what they mean or entail.
Marxists do not argue for nationalistion of industry? What Marxists have u been speaking to? HAHAHAHAHA
It is not incredibly complex, it will be determined by workers democracy.
Democratic plan of production for human need says what it entails. The workers democratically decide the plan for production, sectors to invest in. Nationalistion is not nationalist, it means the economy is controlled by the state and the state is in the hands of the working class.
That's correct...Marxists would say that any play for power is a play for political power, but do not advocate nationalism. If you are going with the workers democracy program, which is only one, you would do well to read a real Marxist's ideas on the issue to comprehend its complexity...see Mandel's "In Defense of Socialist Planning" for a start.
Well, whether you disagree make no difference to me :) I don't even know you. You are right to say that what I think Marxism is doesn't match up with what you think Marxism is. Whether that is a good/bad thing is a different story. I have a master in political theory and have learned from/debated with all kinds. As far as Mandel goes, I am not a big proponent. But, his argument in that paper seems to coincide with your little claims. Have a good night!
Finally, when I said you were myopic it wasn't to make a defense for existing social forms. It was to point out that you are only considering a miniscule part of economic relations, let alone borader economics, psychology, philosophies, social ontology, politics, law, distribution, and so forth.
I like that you used the word democracy...but that's about it. There are a lot of disconnects in your arguement. There have been strong cases made for workers democracies which I have read and concur with on many issues...if you want a serious discussion you can message me. But, what you say here doesn't get at anything. Maybe its because you don't have the space in these little response boxes?
i am not an intellectual snob, i am a worker conscious of my class interest.
When we are talking about what socialism is we do not need to discuss philosophy, ofcourse materialist dialectics is the method of Marxism but we are not talking about that.
Most workers do not learn through marxist books they learn through big events, this events force the lagging consciousness to catch up with the reality.
I applaud you for taking interest in politics and cultivating a class consciousness but being somwhat aware and being informed are two different things. Take that as you wish, but I have too much respect for Marxism to see it poorly represented as is the case here. You are right to say that most people do not learn Marxism for Marx's texts...but those who do show interest deserve to be presented with something better than your vulgar, so-called "Marxism"...
ofcourse socialism does not exist in one country, eventually the resources of the whole world need to be pooled together and planned on a global scale. that does not mean we should not struggle for socialism in our countries but it must always be linked to the international working class. seriously though, if u think marxists do not argue for nationalistion u are extremely confused.
If you recall, you began to argue with me about whether socialism was feasible. But, you haven't made any claims as to why it would be, how it could be attained, how it might be sustained...I'm not even sure you know what socialism means...?
it would be attained by the working class taking power from the capitalist class. the workers must be lead to power by a revolutionary vanguard with the correct ideas, methods, programme, tactics etc to peacefully take us to power.
many times in history the workers have moved towards changing society, had power in their hands and not known how to take it. this is due to the decay of the workers leadership, the mass organisation of the working class. these mass organisations must be revitalised
so they can once again be a vehicle for the workers.
it is clear to me u do not know what Marxism means. I'm starting to think u do alot of debating with people who claim to be Marxists but who are really sectarians who do not understand it. You say Marxists do not argue for nationalistion under workers control, that is completely false.
As we reposess "power" (labour. which is always our labour but now alienated.) from the imperialist class, we must evolve tactics as part of the process... The dictatorship of the proletariat is an essential part in this strategy... But let's not forget that the capitalists are more advanced than the people's army in battle strategies. Not because their any wiser, but they've been using this (dictatorship)and other tactics against the people for a longer time now...
... "On The Jewish Question" and the concept of human emancipation, this can be easily understood as reverted colonialism against the empire (colonizing country), which created the problem in modern capitalist society for both the imperialist and the colonized... This strategy of reverting colonialism against the oppresors, like the european jews did, thus becoming the colonizers of their "masters" in a reverse back-lash effect cannot be wasted neither...
... Worker's Unions (which despite their multiple achievements, still have a long way to go terms of merging into and accepting artisan's union-guilds as a community). Thus, worker's unions in capitalist society have often become a tool of imperialism, by reverting it against the people, in such way also expropiating tht labour (the union itself)
I think that Marx was only trying to create an antithesis to Hegelian idealism (he turned it on its head), in order to reach a synthesis. I don't think he was trying to present an absolute truth. In other words, while men create material realities through ideals, ideals are constantly being informed by material realities. That's weird; that kind of looks like Tillich's method of correlation applied to Marx and Hegel. I'm sleepy... things mixed up in my head. goodnight.
yeah there is no absolute truth marx was after, although what marx gave us was a method by which to reach an objective understanding of our historical moment.
That's interesting, but I'm not sure I understand exactly. Marx's method supposes that matter has ontological primacy which doesn't seem reconcilable with a dualist/idealist perspective. Moreover, his lifes work sustained the materialist perspective instead of reverting to incorporate idealism into his theory. I mean his dialectic approach allows for interplay between natural, social, and concious elements...but idealism seems to be the part of the thesis he is discarding.
Hey, can you explain what you mean by the "idealism" Marx neglects in his theory? Cheers.
I get your argument, but I like Marx's idea that it's the material world that determines what we can now about the world. Only after you've had a full meal and your ready to relax, can you begin to delve into metaphysics and idealism. If your too busy worrying about subsistence, e.g "primitive" tribes, than your not really going to gain much consciousness about the world.
Hi, idealism refers to the 'other half' of dualistic metaphysics. Instead of evoking claims about unknowable substances that possess an indefinite relationship to the material (e.g. soul, mind, god) he posits dialectical monism. Here, evereything is reducable to matter but sees existence as divided into 3 fields (cA-N-S). Here, instead of using mysticism to explain things he showed that relation between two fields are mediated by the third (i.e. man's relation to nature mediated by social R/FPs)
The capitalists can respond to the coming "dictatorship of the proletariat" NOW by union busting, squashing protests, promoting fear that drives the masses apart, etc. Everything that is being done right now. We, the working class, must respond just as fiercely. We must become dictators, but a dictatorship of the working majority against the wealthy, parasitic minority (the capitalists). No war but class war! Things can only get better, or worse. They won't stay the same.
We are actually nearing the stage, in America, of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". The more power the working class has, the closer we get to that. Example: since the industrial era, the unions have worked to almost make child labor in America extinct, have secured the 8 hour work day, have forced the employers to pay minimum wage (for the most part), etc. All against the will of the capitalists. This is what is meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat" - rulership by the workers.
Communism, by the way, is not a mathematical formula you lay over the economy of a society, like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Communism without freedom is not communism, either. The people must become the state voluntarily in order for communism to really exist (Stalinism, for example, was not anything near communism). A confederation of workers' councils is, however.
UltraBeans: Capitalism can not work. Simply put, it depends on the theory of a working free-market economy. However, capitalists automatically work to erase the free-market through the elimination of competition, and through economic dominance (a.k.a. imperialism).
Capitalism eats itself, and that is what Marx had always said.
excellent. could you do something on marx on the jewish question, and what he believed to be human emancipation, as opposed to political emancipation?
so the thing im concerned about since so many colleges seem to bend there doctrine toward marxist, socialist, communist ideology, there never really has been a society thats used it like it was originally thought is this an idea or an ideology that far leftist see for future america
There will always be classes within mankind. Think of putting rocks, gravels, sands, impurities, into a cylinder and shake it. Gradually these materials will find their own space. In communist country there are at least three classes: the communist party leader, the communist members, and the prisoner of the communist doctrine.
Education to eliminate ego and ignorance, teaching morale conducts are the key to harmonious social orders.
Marx didn't see his theories as some type of Pseudo-religion, like the so-called "Marxist-Leninist." He was only trying to understand the world around him. Do his theories concerning the nature of social relations pan out completely? We don't know yet. The point I'm trying to make is that the philosophy of Karl Marx is not the same thing as the repressive tacticts or governmental policies of the USSR. Leninist = marxist, but Marxist doesn't = Leninist.
eh i guess there's a reason it doesn't work and i'm glad it doesn't. but hey, all i know about communism is what i've learned from teachers and what my friends and i discuss in class. i'm in no way an expert in this
eh i dunno. that's just all opinion like my statement up there. i wouldn't like to live under a communist government but i'm just saying that in theory it's good but people are greedy and selfish.
Marxism was also wrong in that it oversimplified the process of production. The matter of means/methods of production are not that simple. According to marxism, we whould all end up doing only physical labor or living on real estate. However, in reality, most of the global economy is generated through services(such as banking and investment).And communism treats people like a piece of wood or rock.
all these tertiary industries developed only under capitalism so i don't think marx/engles took that into account. you're right that he oversimplified the process of production. marxism would only work if there was an absolute abundance of resources, but as we're seeing that is unrealistic.
Marxism is a living tradition; the theory didn't stop with Marx. One writer I have found helpful in understanding the current financial crisis is David Harvey. I'd recommend especially _The New Imperialism_ and _Brief History of Neoliberalism_. Marx and Engels anticipated some later developments of capitalism pretty well, but other developments are still being considered by theorists in the Marxist tradition.
The communist countries were tyrannies in which the ruling marxist elite had everything but the people suffered. If people said something like "we need better living conditions and the party should listen to the people", they were beaten up by the communist party. There is no perfect world but communism was really bad. In capitalism,worker's unions have huge buildings and workers get seats in corporate board. Which is better then?
no political party in history has ever practiced communism as dictated by marx and engles. the corrupt practices shouldn't have a bearing on the integrity marxist ideology. you're right in that this is not a perfect world, and for that reason alone communism will never work
Marx/Engels were concerned to analyze the workings of capital, and to demonstrate that there are structural contradictions in capitalism that cause recurrent crises and that should lead eventually to an overthrow of the system. Of course, what comes after the downfall of capitalism could be anarchy rather than a transition to socialism, but Marx and Engels were optimistic. In "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific," Engels rejected attempts to design a perfect society and implement it top-down.
@xxwzaebd There's never been an authentic Marxist society in the history of the world, all that have evoked his rhetoric never actually followed his teachings. Claiming that they had a "Marxist elite" is very questionable. Lest we forget the great tyrannies of capitalist society, a society that systemically creates endless misery and suffering. Capitalism was designed to exploit the majority for the benefit of the few, I suppose in that respect capitalism has been very successful.
@xxwzaebd Most of those accusations derive from propaganda and social constructs that make you think that it is beyond obvious that communism = tyrannical dictatorship and thought like that for a long time until I read about actual communist theory and socialist regimes.
if the u.s. ruling elite keep up with this health care crisis and credit squeezing we aren't gonna last as a nation 4 very long, drugs and entertaining bullshit like american idol and material crap of the "free market" which is the cause of this recession, wlii only keep the people content for awhile and then it's 1989 in the eastern bloc all over again!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Communism is bad. After all, people in the former Eastern Bloc countries overthrew the communist governments because they were against the people. Freedom is best.
But my point is who controls the direction? Our culture determines what the money and means are put to use doing. At the very least, Marx was pointing out an ethical consideration to be made concerning the values (driven by a production system) that effect how each member of our society is treated and behaves. The means of production as a mirror on our cultural values. As with the progressive and civil rights movements, our overall cultural values determine the behavior of our institutions.
I think some of you have missed a big point here. The means of production, don't mean manufacturing, the means of making things happen in the world, in capitalism are controlled via the flow of money from those with need to those with ability. The far reaching effects of this process can include unethical and harmful behavior. But they also provide us with YouTube. From the media, education, religion, and government, the money system drives it, but it does not give it direction.
I believe reading Marx is important to understand certain aspects of history and society, but the Communism people created based on Marx simply does not work.
It should work, but the initial stages of communism: A government that'll tell people how to share their property seems to stay too long. And with leaders like Stalin, they ain't going to budge. Hence why examples of Communism do not work.
u are talking nonsense. communism has nothing to do with dictators like stalin. from the very beginning socialism is based on workers democracy not bureaucratic dictatorship! slaninist bureaucracy is not workers democracy
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
They are both nonsensical deconstructionist bile which will be viewed in the same light by history students 500 years from now as the equivalent of the huns charging through the gates of Rome.
Largely, postmodernity would appear simply as "late modernity" for historical materialism. So, HM would reject postmodernism's claim to transcend the historical and the material. Yet HM tradition includes a critique of ideology that sees PM as a phenomenon with real historical and material consequences.
1) Great video- its good to see a video on Marxism that isn't a mindless diatribe ('OMG communists are evil!'). And its a good summary of the Marxist conception of history.
Good question, but big question. Briefly Marx's materialist theorization of consciousness and language (in Capital, Vol I) is consistent with and foundational for postmodernism. But, the Marxist concept of "Historical Materialism" is undercut, if not rejected outright, by much postmodernism.
I have came across this great group which opposes the evils of capitalism, imperialism, fascism and nazism. It is predominantly a left-wing group and it is the most pro-freedom and pro-democratic group i have came across. You should go and check it out. Its called the "Coalition of the Left".
Private property, in this system, is congealed labor, which is controlled by and enables the owners of the means of production to set the terms for the workers' wages. If it weren't for the legal and social conditions that protect private property, some people wouldn't be able to avoid paying other people the true value for the labor they exchange with them. Sorry if this response seems cryptic--it's a big question, and time is short.
Thanks for your question. If you haven't viewed them yet, I think you would find my videos on "The Labor Theory of Value" and "Commodity Fetishism" helpful in understanding Marx's critique of private property and surplus value (value created when workers are required to work longer than necessary for reproducing their labor power, which is a "commodity" in its own right). (see continuation in subsequent comment)
What does marxism, have to do with ability of one person? I understand Marxism has the concept of radical equality, abolishment of private property, and minimal wage towards workers, but what does it have to do with the amount of pay towards workers and their ability.
İnteresting... There is something about this marxists view that reminds me of Prigogine's "far from equilibrium systems". self-organisation, emergence, determinism, irreversibility etc.. has anybody tried to look from these perspectives. Sounds stupid, but I think there is something about it... And I still wonder who is playing the background music :)
Thanks for your question. These are complex topics that require some background reading and prior interest. However, I think the series will make more sense to someone who is new to Marxism if it is viewed in a sequence beginning with the "history of modernity" videos ("Economic Conditions of Modernity," "Individual and Society in Modernity," etc), followed by the "Historical Materialism," "Labor Theory of Value" and "Commodities and Commodity Fetishism" videos.
I haven't studied this question systematically, but, offhand, it seems to me that, while there are many "Christian Marxists" or "Marxist Christians" among politicians, political activists and clergy, the philosophical idealism and the anti-historicism of the Christian tradition can't be reconciled with the historical materialism of the Marxist tradition.
great video.. although im not so sure Marx and Engels really answered Hegel successfully; which is to say, their account of history cannot fully explain idea. To choose Hegel over Marx or vice-a-versa seems to get one caught in a hopeless pursuit of origins. I find a negotiation of the two to be a better position: idea and material tangled, base and superstructure in cooperation.
DonMeaker's point about ancient Greek democracy raises another interesting problem for Marxist theory--how did those ancient Greeks come up with the idea of democracy in a slave society? I don't think Marx has a good answer for this, but later Marxist theorists have done better. It's related to Marx's puzzled response to the staying power of ancient Greek tragedy. See my webcast on "Concepts of Ideology."
I'm not sure if we can consider slave society as a type of society like bourgeois, feudal, and tribal. Isn't it a special arrangement that can arise from any of the 3 others ?
That way democracy among aristocrats arises during transition from tribes to feudalism.
There's a book I've always wanted to read, De Ste-croix's class struggle in ancient grece, but it's not released in french. I think it might have some insights on that subject, have you read it ?
I suppose you're right... slavery is not really a necessary or even dominant feature of any of those modes of production, except what Marx calls the "asiatic" mode (ancient Egypt). And ancient Greece would be transitional tribal. I haven't read de Ste-Croix, but colleagues regard the work very highly.
Rather silly to assert that the idea of democracy is determined by material condition, when democracy has been seen from the ancient greeks to modern times. This suggests that ideas of self government are inherent to man, not caused by his surroundings.
Fair criticism. That's my assertion, not directly from Marx. I think Marx would say that the ancient Greeks had democracy for the aristocracy, dependent upon the economic foundation of a slave economy. It required the emerging economic conditions of industrial modernity to extend this idea beyond the ranks of the aristocracy. And even then, what we are talking about is democracy for the bourgeoisie, not for the proletariat.
Fantastic. It would be great to see a series of videos on this particular subject from the same Professor, just to break it down a little more meticulously for the dumbheads in the world like me. But still, fantastic. Marxism, specifically dialectical materialism, is truly the best analysis of the world that exists today.
Other than calling it "trash" and "mental masturbation", do you have any specific and coherent arguments against Historical Materialism? Do you even understand Historical Materialism?
Discussing Historical Materialism brings no value to me nor does proving you wrong.
Make me a cash offer for my time and if your offer meets my value, perhaps I will.
However, I have already proven to the world your lacking reading comprehension skills and in doing so, expose your expression as unworthy of consideration.
yes sailaway, the point is not simply to understand the world but to transform it. Without participation in the class struggle and the revolutionary party, "academic marxism" is not marxist at all, it is another commodity to be bought and sold.
That was fantastic. Thank you so much for submitting that. It was an extremely refreshing break from the idiocy that litters YouTube. Marxism is certainly misunderstood!!! Everyone seems to have an opinion on it but nobody knows a damned thing about it. Again, thank you.
Historical materialism is a way of thought about our existence in some ways. For Marx, labour and work are the primal ways of existing, as it's the interpretation of our thoughts.
What we see in capitalism is what Marx called alienization from actual products. This is a thing to think about.
S0ulForgeD 7 months ago
Re skiskiskiii-- This question turns out to be a very important question in the history of Marxist thought. On reflection, I realized that I always use the term "Historical Materialism" rather than "Dialectical Materialism," but couldn't remember why (if, indeed, I had a reason). When I consulted Bottomore's _Dictionary of Marxist Thought_, I saw why. Check out the entry on "Dialectical Materialism" from that work... I think it will be useful for you. Or email (rlstrick@mtu.edu) for pdf.
rlstrick 1 year ago
Many thanks for this very useful overview of what had seemd like a complicated concept (before you elucidated it here). Question: How does Historical Materialism differ from Dialectic Materialism? I assume that the former merely emphasises Marxist conceptualisations of history rather than more generally providing the theoretical framework for Marxist understanding of society? Is this correct? Or is it possible to ise the terms interchangeably? Many thanks,
Jenny
skiskiskiiiii 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many thanks for this very useful overview of what had seemd like a complicated concept (before you elucidated it here). Question: How does Historical Materialism differ from Dialectic Materialism? I assume that the former merely emphasises Marxist conceptualisations of history rather than more generally providing the theoretical framework for Marxist understanding of society? Is this correct? Or is it possible to ise the terms interchangeably? Many thanks,
Jenny
skiskiskiiiii 1 year ago
Many thanks for this very useful overview of what had seemd like a complicated concept (before you elucidated it here). Question: How does Historical Materialism differ from Dialectic Materialism? I assume that the former merely emphasises Marxist conceptualisations of history rather than more generally providing the theoretical framework for Marxist understanding of society? Is this correct? Or is it possible to ise the terms interchangeably? Many thanks,
Jenny
skiskiskiiiii 1 year ago
Jesus is worthy to rule earth, Jesus loves you.
bass109 1 year ago
People in capitalistic countries live better in average than in communist countries like North Korea.
xxwzaebd 1 year ago
The fact that communism is murder and dictatorship is NOT propaganda but proven in history. It killed over 100 million people. We don't have to read Marx books but search "Stalin","Pol Pot","Ceaucescu","Mao Zedong","Tiananmen square","Kim Jong Il" and "Slobodan Milosevic" to learn what communism is.
xxwzaebd 1 year ago
i wouldnt dislike athiest so much if so many of them didnt believe in materialism
extremeeXrement1 1 year ago
If I didn't see Patrick Stewart first, I'd vouch for this guy to be Xavier!
RaineSeras 1 year ago
How to manage a democracy once it gets out of control: watch?v=BBezaI0bnAQ&
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
arrrgh! Its Saruman!!!
NaziDan1488 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com FOWEPIR
titalminarisa 2 years ago
Most of the time classic lies. Music is an metaphor of this. Psychology of human being changes base on exchange among themselves and they would just behind their lies and leave other people that those are majority of thought of that time. If you find contradictions, please don't follow. It is just very basic.
beancube2008 3 years ago
wtf are you talking about?
trisix99 2 years ago
Huh?
CW8824 2 years ago
Plus an introduction to and detailed explanation of how capitalism ex-propiated the term "equality" and changed it's original definition of "liberty" and replaced it for the meaning "uniformity" in it's facist tervigersation of the truth becomes necesary at this historical moment we living now...
marxistaboricua 3 years ago
Organizing the masses and finding out each and every one individual real talents in a honest way have proven to be the biggest challenge for us Soviets so far. Due to the auto-destructive mess that has been laid by capitalism in it's nature plus infiltrating agendas against real communism. This is a matter we should pay importance too, working on finding and fitting people's "likes" and "talents" in the socialist society...
marxistaboricua 3 years ago 2
Are you sure socialism is feasible?...it seems like working towards imaginary socialism instead of improving the human condition from where we are invites a myopic view and sets up a possible contradiction between socialist ideals, our values, and the goal of socialism. Moreover, it pressuposes that socialism is one thing and ignores the presuppositions and internalized fictions that colour how each of us understands reality.
CW8824 2 years ago
socialism is a planned nationalised economy controlled by workers democracy.
so the economy is in the democratic hands of the majority in society and it is planned for human need.
ofcourse it is feasible
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
I know what socialism and communism are. Your statements above make no argument as to their feasability. Marx never formulated a theory of how to structure such an economy. Morover, your narrow focus (which is not attirbutable to most Marxists or Marx himself) misses the fact that economics are an aspect of a larger unity, which has other elements and relations that must be considered in making such claims.
CW8824 2 years ago
clearly u do not if u question its feasibility.
how is my focus narrow?
i just stated what socialism is and highlighted that it is very simple and possible.
public ownership under democratic workers control, this is what all marxists fight for.
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
That's a somewhat rudimentary understanding of it, I suppose. I am not anti-Marxist but you seem somewhat naive. When I called you myopic, I followed by explaining you were ignoring everything except a small part of the economic relations. You aren't even giving economics their due, let alone philosophies, distribution, psychology, politics, law, programmatic strategies, social ontology, various institutions, global relationships, directives, cultural differences, intracultural differences...
CW8824 2 years ago
u can use as many big flowery words as u like but all marxists argue for nationalistion of the key industries and banks and workers control. it is that simple.
when the means of production are in the democratic hands of the working class we can plan production for our needs. the incentive will be to work less, as technology advances, productivity increase. meaning it will take less time to produce what we need. the working day will therefore be consistently reduced until we only need to work
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
Actually, Marxists do not argue for the nationalization of industry. Marx himself was adiment that socialism could never be sustained in a country. He argued for global socialism. So, quite simply, you are dead wrong. As far as "planning production for our needs" goes, you are brushing over an incredibly complex issue Marxists still debate to this day. Also, you use words like democratic, production, needs, incentive, etc. with little respect for what they mean or entail.
CW8824 2 years ago
Marxists do not argue for nationalistion of industry? What Marxists have u been speaking to? HAHAHAHAHA
It is not incredibly complex, it will be determined by workers democracy.
Democratic plan of production for human need says what it entails. The workers democratically decide the plan for production, sectors to invest in. Nationalistion is not nationalist, it means the economy is controlled by the state and the state is in the hands of the working class.
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
That's correct...Marxists would say that any play for power is a play for political power, but do not advocate nationalism. If you are going with the workers democracy program, which is only one, you would do well to read a real Marxist's ideas on the issue to comprehend its complexity...see Mandel's "In Defense of Socialist Planning" for a start.
CW8824 2 years ago
Mandel? HAHAHA u just proved my point exactly.
You have been confused by the muddy water of the sects.
Alan Woods and Ted Grant completely destroyed any Pretensions of Mandel being a Marxist but now i understand.
Enjoy your sectarian debates.
We at the IMT prefer to struggle for socialism with the working class and their mass organisation. Good luck
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
Well, whether you disagree make no difference to me :) I don't even know you. You are right to say that what I think Marxism is doesn't match up with what you think Marxism is. Whether that is a good/bad thing is a different story. I have a master in political theory and have learned from/debated with all kinds. As far as Mandel goes, I am not a big proponent. But, his argument in that paper seems to coincide with your little claims. Have a good night!
CW8824 2 years ago
Finally, when I said you were myopic it wasn't to make a defense for existing social forms. It was to point out that you are only considering a miniscule part of economic relations, let alone borader economics, psychology, philosophies, social ontology, politics, law, distribution, and so forth.
CW8824 2 years ago
this is youtube, i'm not going to go into detail. i discuss these issues with my comrades as i am active in the struggle for socialism.
the 4 laws Lenin set out for workers democracy are very simple and still valid.
1 all officials elected and subject to direct recall
2 no official to be paid more than a skilled worker
3 all jobs in the running of the state to be rotated
4 no standing army but the armed people.
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
these officials will be elected in the workplace and will link up locally, regionally and nationally in committees
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
I like that you used the word democracy...but that's about it. There are a lot of disconnects in your arguement. There have been strong cases made for workers democracies which I have read and concur with on many issues...if you want a serious discussion you can message me. But, what you say here doesn't get at anything. Maybe its because you don't have the space in these little response boxes?
CW8824 2 years ago
a few hours a week to produce superabundance.
i am not an intellectual snob, i am a worker conscious of my class interest.
When we are talking about what socialism is we do not need to discuss philosophy, ofcourse materialist dialectics is the method of Marxism but we are not talking about that.
Most workers do not learn through marxist books they learn through big events, this events force the lagging consciousness to catch up with the reality.
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
I applaud you for taking interest in politics and cultivating a class consciousness but being somwhat aware and being informed are two different things. Take that as you wish, but I have too much respect for Marxism to see it poorly represented as is the case here. You are right to say that most people do not learn Marxism for Marx's texts...but those who do show interest deserve to be presented with something better than your vulgar, so-called "Marxism"...
CW8824 2 years ago
ofcourse socialism does not exist in one country, eventually the resources of the whole world need to be pooled together and planned on a global scale. that does not mean we should not struggle for socialism in our countries but it must always be linked to the international working class. seriously though, if u think marxists do not argue for nationalistion u are extremely confused.
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
If you recall, you began to argue with me about whether socialism was feasible. But, you haven't made any claims as to why it would be, how it could be attained, how it might be sustained...I'm not even sure you know what socialism means...?
CW8824 2 years ago
it would be attained by the working class taking power from the capitalist class. the workers must be lead to power by a revolutionary vanguard with the correct ideas, methods, programme, tactics etc to peacefully take us to power.
many times in history the workers have moved towards changing society, had power in their hands and not known how to take it. this is due to the decay of the workers leadership, the mass organisation of the working class. these mass organisations must be revitalised
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
so they can once again be a vehicle for the workers.
it is clear to me u do not know what Marxism means. I'm starting to think u do alot of debating with people who claim to be Marxists but who are really sectarians who do not understand it. You say Marxists do not argue for nationalistion under workers control, that is completely false.
marxistsoldier 2 years ago
As we reposess "power" (labour. which is always our labour but now alienated.) from the imperialist class, we must evolve tactics as part of the process... The dictatorship of the proletariat is an essential part in this strategy... But let's not forget that the capitalists are more advanced than the people's army in battle strategies. Not because their any wiser, but they've been using this (dictatorship)and other tactics against the people for a longer time now...
marxistaboricua 3 years ago
... "On The Jewish Question" and the concept of human emancipation, this can be easily understood as reverted colonialism against the empire (colonizing country), which created the problem in modern capitalist society for both the imperialist and the colonized... This strategy of reverting colonialism against the oppresors, like the european jews did, thus becoming the colonizers of their "masters" in a reverse back-lash effect cannot be wasted neither...
marxistaboricua 3 years ago
Fantastic, thanks.
masbbo 3 years ago
... Worker's Unions (which despite their multiple achievements, still have a long way to go terms of merging into and accepting artisan's union-guilds as a community). Thus, worker's unions in capitalist society have often become a tool of imperialism, by reverting it against the people, in such way also expropiating tht labour (the union itself)
marxistaboricua 3 years ago
I think that Marx was only trying to create an antithesis to Hegelian idealism (he turned it on its head), in order to reach a synthesis. I don't think he was trying to present an absolute truth. In other words, while men create material realities through ideals, ideals are constantly being informed by material realities. That's weird; that kind of looks like Tillich's method of correlation applied to Marx and Hegel. I'm sleepy... things mixed up in my head. goodnight.
dbturner85 3 years ago
yeah there is no absolute truth marx was after, although what marx gave us was a method by which to reach an objective understanding of our historical moment.
plutoohno 3 years ago
That's interesting, but I'm not sure I understand exactly. Marx's method supposes that matter has ontological primacy which doesn't seem reconcilable with a dualist/idealist perspective. Moreover, his lifes work sustained the materialist perspective instead of reverting to incorporate idealism into his theory. I mean his dialectic approach allows for interplay between natural, social, and concious elements...but idealism seems to be the part of the thesis he is discarding.
CW8824 3 years ago
Hey, can you explain what you mean by the "idealism" Marx neglects in his theory? Cheers.
I get your argument, but I like Marx's idea that it's the material world that determines what we can now about the world. Only after you've had a full meal and your ready to relax, can you begin to delve into metaphysics and idealism. If your too busy worrying about subsistence, e.g "primitive" tribes, than your not really going to gain much consciousness about the world.
ubertoker05 2 years ago
Comment removed
CW8824 2 years ago
Hi, idealism refers to the 'other half' of dualistic metaphysics. Instead of evoking claims about unknowable substances that possess an indefinite relationship to the material (e.g. soul, mind, god) he posits dialectical monism. Here, evereything is reducable to matter but sees existence as divided into 3 fields (cA-N-S). Here, instead of using mysticism to explain things he showed that relation between two fields are mediated by the third (i.e. man's relation to nature mediated by social R/FPs)
CW8824 2 years ago
The capitalists can respond to the coming "dictatorship of the proletariat" NOW by union busting, squashing protests, promoting fear that drives the masses apart, etc. Everything that is being done right now. We, the working class, must respond just as fiercely. We must become dictators, but a dictatorship of the working majority against the wealthy, parasitic minority (the capitalists). No war but class war! Things can only get better, or worse. They won't stay the same.
meilanfiona 3 years ago 2
We are actually nearing the stage, in America, of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". The more power the working class has, the closer we get to that. Example: since the industrial era, the unions have worked to almost make child labor in America extinct, have secured the 8 hour work day, have forced the employers to pay minimum wage (for the most part), etc. All against the will of the capitalists. This is what is meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat" - rulership by the workers.
meilanfiona 3 years ago 2
Communism, by the way, is not a mathematical formula you lay over the economy of a society, like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Communism without freedom is not communism, either. The people must become the state voluntarily in order for communism to really exist (Stalinism, for example, was not anything near communism). A confederation of workers' councils is, however.
meilanfiona 3 years ago 2
UltraBeans: Capitalism can not work. Simply put, it depends on the theory of a working free-market economy. However, capitalists automatically work to erase the free-market through the elimination of competition, and through economic dominance (a.k.a. imperialism).
Capitalism eats itself, and that is what Marx had always said.
meilanfiona 3 years ago
Ron's on fire here. I think it's the best I've seen of this excellent series.
rastabus 3 years ago
excellent. could you do something on marx on the jewish question, and what he believed to be human emancipation, as opposed to political emancipation?
trisix99 3 years ago
so the thing im concerned about since so many colleges seem to bend there doctrine toward marxist, socialist, communist ideology, there never really has been a society thats used it like it was originally thought is this an idea or an ideology that far leftist see for future america
ellisaaron528 3 years ago
There will always be classes within mankind. Think of putting rocks, gravels, sands, impurities, into a cylinder and shake it. Gradually these materials will find their own space. In communist country there are at least three classes: the communist party leader, the communist members, and the prisoner of the communist doctrine.
Education to eliminate ego and ignorance, teaching morale conducts are the key to harmonious social orders.
nmqtabtp 3 years ago
Marx didn't see his theories as some type of Pseudo-religion, like the so-called "Marxist-Leninist." He was only trying to understand the world around him. Do his theories concerning the nature of social relations pan out completely? We don't know yet. The point I'm trying to make is that the philosophy of Karl Marx is not the same thing as the repressive tacticts or governmental policies of the USSR. Leninist = marxist, but Marxist doesn't = Leninist.
dbturner85 3 years ago
Anyone who understood anything about Marx would agree with you! It's too bad most people do not heheh.
trisix99 3 years ago
At what Univerisity or college is this course taught?
KhanSlayer 3 years ago
You are forgetting that Von Mises is full of shit.
283679423 3 years ago
eh i guess there's a reason it doesn't work and i'm glad it doesn't. but hey, all i know about communism is what i've learned from teachers and what my friends and i discuss in class. i'm in no way an expert in this
asiandude154 3 years ago
eh i dunno. that's just all opinion like my statement up there. i wouldn't like to live under a communist government but i'm just saying that in theory it's good but people are greedy and selfish.
asiandude154 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
some of my friends and i concluded that communism is great in theory but when you put the human element in, it just all fucks up
asiandude154 3 years ago
Asiandude154 I totally agree man....
fallonkristakloc 3 years ago
Marxism was also wrong in that it oversimplified the process of production. The matter of means/methods of production are not that simple. According to marxism, we whould all end up doing only physical labor or living on real estate. However, in reality, most of the global economy is generated through services(such as banking and investment).And communism treats people like a piece of wood or rock.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
all these tertiary industries developed only under capitalism so i don't think marx/engles took that into account. you're right that he oversimplified the process of production. marxism would only work if there was an absolute abundance of resources, but as we're seeing that is unrealistic.
ginrou 3 years ago
Marxism is a living tradition; the theory didn't stop with Marx. One writer I have found helpful in understanding the current financial crisis is David Harvey. I'd recommend especially _The New Imperialism_ and _Brief History of Neoliberalism_. Marx and Engels anticipated some later developments of capitalism pretty well, but other developments are still being considered by theorists in the Marxist tradition.
rlstrick 3 years ago
So Ron do you participate in any of the current anti-capitalist,anti war movements?
eskdi1234 3 years ago
No, for the present, family responsibilities take up most of my spare time.
rlstrick 3 years ago
Fair enough.
In your view,why aren't US activists standing a credible left electoral alternative to Obama/Clinton?
There's so many people in the States fed up with Bush and all he stands for,it would be about time!
Admittedly,the left has had election setbacks here in Europe recently,but surely it's still worth fighting for?
eskdi1234 3 years ago
And those services are there to support the production and exchange of goods, made by workers.
xnostromo 3 years ago
The communist countries were tyrannies in which the ruling marxist elite had everything but the people suffered. If people said something like "we need better living conditions and the party should listen to the people", they were beaten up by the communist party. There is no perfect world but communism was really bad. In capitalism,worker's unions have huge buildings and workers get seats in corporate board. Which is better then?
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
no political party in history has ever practiced communism as dictated by marx and engles. the corrupt practices shouldn't have a bearing on the integrity marxist ideology. you're right in that this is not a perfect world, and for that reason alone communism will never work
ginrou 3 years ago
Marx/Engels were concerned to analyze the workings of capital, and to demonstrate that there are structural contradictions in capitalism that cause recurrent crises and that should lead eventually to an overthrow of the system. Of course, what comes after the downfall of capitalism could be anarchy rather than a transition to socialism, but Marx and Engels were optimistic. In "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific," Engels rejected attempts to design a perfect society and implement it top-down.
rlstrick 3 years ago
@rlstrick misusing the word anarchy there. Anarchy is a libertarian form of socialism, not chaos
dubified89 1 year ago
@xxwzaebd There's never been an authentic Marxist society in the history of the world, all that have evoked his rhetoric never actually followed his teachings. Claiming that they had a "Marxist elite" is very questionable. Lest we forget the great tyrannies of capitalist society, a society that systemically creates endless misery and suffering. Capitalism was designed to exploit the majority for the benefit of the few, I suppose in that respect capitalism has been very successful.
SpectacleofDebord 1 year ago
@xxwzaebd Most of those accusations derive from propaganda and social constructs that make you think that it is beyond obvious that communism = tyrannical dictatorship and thought like that for a long time until I read about actual communist theory and socialist regimes.
xx1994xxversion2 1 year ago 3
if the u.s. ruling elite keep up with this health care crisis and credit squeezing we aren't gonna last as a nation 4 very long, drugs and entertaining bullshit like american idol and material crap of the "free market" which is the cause of this recession, wlii only keep the people content for awhile and then it's 1989 in the eastern bloc all over again!!!
dansamper 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Communism is bad. After all, people in the former Eastern Bloc countries overthrew the communist governments because they were against the people. Freedom is best.
xxwzaebd 3 years ago
But my point is who controls the direction? Our culture determines what the money and means are put to use doing. At the very least, Marx was pointing out an ethical consideration to be made concerning the values (driven by a production system) that effect how each member of our society is treated and behaves. The means of production as a mirror on our cultural values. As with the progressive and civil rights movements, our overall cultural values determine the behavior of our institutions.
EchosideProductions 3 years ago
I think some of you have missed a big point here. The means of production, don't mean manufacturing, the means of making things happen in the world, in capitalism are controlled via the flow of money from those with need to those with ability. The far reaching effects of this process can include unethical and harmful behavior. But they also provide us with YouTube. From the media, education, religion, and government, the money system drives it, but it does not give it direction.
EchosideProductions 3 years ago
odronir says communism wouldn't work! but is capitalism working? clearly not, it is failing humanity miserably.
Nitenichiryu 3 years ago 2
However I remain convinced that in terms of magnitude the failure of capitalism is nothing compared to the failure of communism.
SeventhSun 3 years ago
I think that the basic idea is great but the only problem is people have no motivation to work hard.
mynameisryco 3 years ago
the incentive would be to work less. eventually we would only need to work 2 hrs a week to produce what we need
Nitenichiryu 3 years ago
I believe reading Marx is important to understand certain aspects of history and society, but the Communism people created based on Marx simply does not work.
Odronir 4 years ago
It should work, but the initial stages of communism: A government that'll tell people how to share their property seems to stay too long. And with leaders like Stalin, they ain't going to budge. Hence why examples of Communism do not work.
JonnyBrotherJr 4 years ago
u are talking nonsense. communism has nothing to do with dictators like stalin. from the very beginning socialism is based on workers democracy not bureaucratic dictatorship! slaninist bureaucracy is not workers democracy
Nitenichiryu 3 years ago
that wasn't communsim!
Nitenichiryu 3 years ago
Yep. Marx described the stages after Capitalism as such:
-Workers' state OR Proletariat Dictatorship/Democracy
then
-A classless, stateless society.
JonnyBrotherJr 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They are both nonsensical deconstructionist bile which will be viewed in the same light by history students 500 years from now as the equivalent of the huns charging through the gates of Rome.
madelinefauchelevant 4 years ago
My friend, please tell me how can we understant postmodernism with the historial materialism?
Is it an anthithesis? and if it is, of whitch thesis?
:)
eldiagrama 4 years ago
Largely, postmodernity would appear simply as "late modernity" for historical materialism. So, HM would reject postmodernism's claim to transcend the historical and the material. Yet HM tradition includes a critique of ideology that sees PM as a phenomenon with real historical and material consequences.
rlstrick 4 years ago
1) Great video- its good to see a video on Marxism that isn't a mindless diatribe ('OMG communists are evil!'). And its a good summary of the Marxist conception of history.
2) How are Marxism and postmodernism related?
vforvoltaire 4 years ago
Good question, but big question. Briefly Marx's materialist theorization of consciousness and language (in Capital, Vol I) is consistent with and foundational for postmodernism. But, the Marxist concept of "Historical Materialism" is undercut, if not rejected outright, by much postmodernism.
rlstrick 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have came across this great group which opposes the evils of capitalism, imperialism, fascism and nazism. It is predominantly a left-wing group and it is the most pro-freedom and pro-democratic group i have came across. You should go and check it out. Its called the "Coalition of the Left".
SAY NO TO GLOBAL CAPITALISM.
SAY NOT RACISM AND FASCISM.
END THE IMPERIALIST OCCUPATION OF IRAQ NOW!
santino666 4 years ago
I also want to thankyou, I'm studying the fall of the Soviet Union and needed a good guide to Marxism/Communism. I will view all of your podcasts!
illusiveprotagonist 4 years ago
Private property, in this system, is congealed labor, which is controlled by and enables the owners of the means of production to set the terms for the workers' wages. If it weren't for the legal and social conditions that protect private property, some people wouldn't be able to avoid paying other people the true value for the labor they exchange with them. Sorry if this response seems cryptic--it's a big question, and time is short.
rlstrick 4 years ago
Thanks for your question. If you haven't viewed them yet, I think you would find my videos on "The Labor Theory of Value" and "Commodity Fetishism" helpful in understanding Marx's critique of private property and surplus value (value created when workers are required to work longer than necessary for reproducing their labor power, which is a "commodity" in its own right). (see continuation in subsequent comment)
rlstrick 4 years ago
What does marxism, have to do with ability of one person? I understand Marxism has the concept of radical equality, abolishment of private property, and minimal wage towards workers, but what does it have to do with the amount of pay towards workers and their ability.
o0ocloudxox 4 years ago
İnteresting... There is something about this marxists view that reminds me of Prigogine's "far from equilibrium systems". self-organisation, emergence, determinism, irreversibility etc.. has anybody tried to look from these perspectives. Sounds stupid, but I think there is something about it... And I still wonder who is playing the background music :)
barisozdil 4 years ago
can you please explain simply and clearly what you are saying and quating from marx's wrtings. your audience are getting confuest...
Shonbul 4 years ago
Thanks for your question. These are complex topics that require some background reading and prior interest. However, I think the series will make more sense to someone who is new to Marxism if it is viewed in a sequence beginning with the "history of modernity" videos ("Economic Conditions of Modernity," "Individual and Society in Modernity," etc), followed by the "Historical Materialism," "Labor Theory of Value" and "Commodities and Commodity Fetishism" videos.
rlstrick 4 years ago
are you a pro regarding marxism?, because if so there are a couple of questions i want to ask
Eiketsu3000 4 years ago
I teach literature and culture; so, what Marxist theory I've read relates mostly to those fields.
rlstrick 4 years ago
Is there a christian or any kind of theist who's also a marxist?. Arno J. Mayer is a jew yet he's a marxist
Eiketsu3000 4 years ago
I haven't studied this question systematically, but, offhand, it seems to me that, while there are many "Christian Marxists" or "Marxist Christians" among politicians, political activists and clergy, the philosophical idealism and the anti-historicism of the Christian tradition can't be reconciled with the historical materialism of the Marxist tradition.
rlstrick 4 years ago
That is true. All have died in Adam (Hebrew for 'humanity') and that humanity has struggled to live on earth.
chsbcg 4 years ago
Thank you so much for this and all your other videos.
mjovi1 4 years ago
great video.. although im not so sure Marx and Engels really answered Hegel successfully; which is to say, their account of history cannot fully explain idea. To choose Hegel over Marx or vice-a-versa seems to get one caught in a hopeless pursuit of origins. I find a negotiation of the two to be a better position: idea and material tangled, base and superstructure in cooperation.
0neironaut 4 years ago
DonMeaker's point about ancient Greek democracy raises another interesting problem for Marxist theory--how did those ancient Greeks come up with the idea of democracy in a slave society? I don't think Marx has a good answer for this, but later Marxist theorists have done better. It's related to Marx's puzzled response to the staying power of ancient Greek tragedy. See my webcast on "Concepts of Ideology."
rlstrick 4 years ago
I'm not sure if we can consider slave society as a type of society like bourgeois, feudal, and tribal. Isn't it a special arrangement that can arise from any of the 3 others ?
That way democracy among aristocrats arises during transition from tribes to feudalism.
There's a book I've always wanted to read, De Ste-croix's class struggle in ancient grece, but it's not released in french. I think it might have some insights on that subject, have you read it ?
Longlivethe4th 4 years ago
I suppose you're right... slavery is not really a necessary or even dominant feature of any of those modes of production, except what Marx calls the "asiatic" mode (ancient Egypt). And ancient Greece would be transitional tribal. I haven't read de Ste-Croix, but colleagues regard the work very highly.
rlstrick 4 years ago
Rather silly to assert that the idea of democracy is determined by material condition, when democracy has been seen from the ancient greeks to modern times. This suggests that ideas of self government are inherent to man, not caused by his surroundings.
DonMeaker 4 years ago
Fair criticism. That's my assertion, not directly from Marx. I think Marx would say that the ancient Greeks had democracy for the aristocracy, dependent upon the economic foundation of a slave economy. It required the emerging economic conditions of industrial modernity to extend this idea beyond the ranks of the aristocracy. And even then, what we are talking about is democracy for the bourgeoisie, not for the proletariat.
rlstrick 4 years ago
You are a very clever man and i enjoy your explanations..
Thanks for posting them and keep on doing it.
apdmont 4 years ago
Collective action, guided by a dialectical and historical materialist outlook, is the only way for society to progress forward.
Congest 4 years ago
Fantastic. It would be great to see a series of videos on this particular subject from the same Professor, just to break it down a little more meticulously for the dumbheads in the world like me. But still, fantastic. Marxism, specifically dialectical materialism, is truly the best analysis of the world that exists today.
Xproletariatx 4 years ago
What trash. Mental masturbation. Bookhead PhDuh Church of Academia.
No doubt, only taxdollars fund this guy's salary whose existence requires Political Markets.
He would never be able to sell this crap in truly Free Markets.
pier23ca 4 years ago
Other than calling it "trash" and "mental masturbation", do you have any specific and coherent arguments against Historical Materialism? Do you even understand Historical Materialism?
Congest 4 years ago
Other than a lack of reading comprehension, do you have any cogent (probably the word you wanted) argument against me?
Notice, I attacked the Bookhead PhDuh. I made no mention of K. Marx's doctrine of Historial Materialism.
pier23ca 4 years ago
"I made no mention of K. Marx's doctrine of Historial Materialism."
You didn't mention it because you have nothing to refute it. Prove me wrong.
Congest 4 years ago
Discussing Historical Materialism brings no value to me nor does proving you wrong.
Make me a cash offer for my time and if your offer meets my value, perhaps I will.
However, I have already proven to the world your lacking reading comprehension skills and in doing so, expose your expression as unworthy of consideration.
pier23ca 4 years ago
"Discussing Historical Materialism brings no value to me nor does proving you wrong."
In other words, you can't raise any kind of intellectual challenge to Historical Materialism.
Congest 4 years ago
Who cares about raising an "intellectual challenge"? Intellectuals live in false belief faux theoretical worlds.
All games have a per round payoff for play. In order to play this game with you, you have to compensate me to make it a random walk.
Put $100 in my Paypal account for this first round and we can continue our talk.
pier23ca 4 years ago
yes sailaway, the point is not simply to understand the world but to transform it. Without participation in the class struggle and the revolutionary party, "academic marxism" is not marxist at all, it is another commodity to be bought and sold.
steve07mushy 4 years ago
This is an excellet film, thank you *VERY* much for uploading.
I agree with Marx and Engles that dialectics are the highest form of thinking and matter is the only reality.
THE WORKERS HAVE ONLY THEIR CHAINS TO LOSE AND A WORLD TO WIN.
WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! MAKE CAPITALISM HISTORY!
Thanks again for this video!
sailaway786 4 years ago
These videos are great. Thanks alot man, I've studied Marxism on my own time and found these very helpful.
Zingu00 4 years ago
That was fantastic. Thank you so much for submitting that. It was an extremely refreshing break from the idiocy that litters YouTube. Marxism is certainly misunderstood!!! Everyone seems to have an opinion on it but nobody knows a damned thing about it. Again, thank you.
renegademasterben 4 years ago