Can't Anybody See? its not Al-Qaeda, its not Iran, nor is it our Housing Market, nor Our Unemployment! It is Our 'DEBT' that is Killing us! We were Suppose to Stop this Madness at 14 trillion dollars in Debt! we are almost 16 trillion in Debt! WHEN IS IT GOING TO STOP! Our Debt is Going to DESTROY US! Not COMMUNISM, Not TERRORISM, Our DEBT!
We are Basically Supporting 'CHINA' and They are Basically Supporting us...We (the United States)are No Longer 14 trillion dollars in Debt! We are Going on 16 trillion dollars in Debt! and well,"CHINA", they don't have any Debt! They have about 3 trillion dollars in the Bank! All from the United States,We are Practically Building their Country for Them.Thats Where China Gets all their Money,From US! Every Single Day,China's Bank Account Grows "One Billion Dollars",While we Keep DROWNING IN DEBT!
This is What "CAPITALISM" is all About! It is About"Making the Most Money Possible".And when things Get too"Expensive"in the United States(which they are)People are Going to Start Looking Elsewhere...I Don't think Our Fathers, Who Created this Great Country( George Washington,Benjamin Franklin,and Thomas Jefferson ) Created it So that 300 years Later, Our Economy would be Dependent on "India" and "China". All India and China has to do is Say "NO", and Our Economy would Completely Collapse!
Let's say you Create a Company and you "NEED" to Hire 300 Engineer's.? Are you Going to Hire 300 Engineer's in the "United States" for around $80,000 dollars a year, or, Are you Going to Hire 300 Engineer's in "India" or "China" for around $20,000 dollars a year.? Everybody Knows the Answer to that! This is Why Nothing is Being made in the United States Anymore. This is Why all our Manufacturing Jobs are Leaving the Country. It's Not about "Sweat Shops", its just "CHEAPER", Plain and Simple...
I've been to assembly lines in china. They're not great. But they're not starving. They can afford meals and are able to save money. Obviously they wouldn't work if they were "Starvation wages".
Making those shirts is the best prospect those people have. Take it away they'll have nothing. (Actually though, the Chinese could just stop exporting as much to the U.S. since our currency is worthless. But it's their government that's screwing them in that respect, not capitalism.)
marx was a JEW who gave rise to COMMUNISM which KILLED 100,000,000 PEOPLE !! isnt that worse than not knowing where your 60 dollar shirt came from ???
Good points, I hadn't thought about the identity issue at all but I can see how the two interconnect. Maybe if more Americans made their own clothes we would stop being so depressed all the time
Good explanation of the theory. Of course, I have serious, serious doubts about the theory.
For one, I think it's incredibly superficial to just call it a "raw deal" if the workers can't purchase the product into which they input labor. There are many inputs that go into selling a T-shirt, and labor is only one. There's capital, transportation, warehousing, etc. Marx simply made the crude assumption that only labor "really" produces output, but such an assumption is idiotic...
...and was painfully demonstrated in the very early days of the Soviet Union, before Lenin had to institute an economic system that was, ultimately, state-capitalism rather than an attempt at true socialism.
Secondly, I don't buy the notion that brands like American Eagle tell us what we should want. Clothes have more function these days than keeping you warm and decent, they're status symbols, and humans have been using such symbols as long as they've existed. It isn't exactly unique to...
Nice vid. Great points. Marx had a lot of things going for him but he got a bad rap because he didn't INSIST that the state must perish. Not after the dictatorship of the proletariat but NOW.
You're a very intelligent woman, just be wary of the labor theory of value. It'll lead you astray
Marx said industrialization negates socialism - so a country has to go through the capitalist stage before it goes through the socialist stage. This, in a sense, is why Chinese and Indian attempts at socialism failed. However now Chinese and Indian workers are industrializing they will form trade unions and fund political parties which in turn will call for universal suffrage i.e. real and meaningful democracy.Hence, Globalization negates the final stage of capitalism.
If you want people to take you seriously, please know something about the countries you mention and use correct terminology because you put a lot of countries into the same bandwagon as sweatshop countries and a lot of companies in the same category as sweatshop users
@Klauwsawitzz of course, because when the people who use the toilets are in charge, they will want the toilets dirty! You're such a genius! Go tell it to fox news I bet they'd love it!
SOME POOR WRETCHED COMMUNIST STILL IS GOING TO HAVE TO CLEAN PUBLIC TOILETS, OR DO COMMUNIST NOT SHIT? I WOULD IMAGINE COMMUNAL TOILETS WOULD BECOME ESPECIALLY DISCUSTING, IF YOU DID'NT OWN THE TOILET YOU WERE CRAPPING IN THAN WHY NOT SPRAY DIARRHEA ALL OVER THE BOWL?I'M GLAD THERE IS NOT SOME FUCKING COMMUNIST COMMITY WHO WILL DECIDE IF ITS MY LOT IN LIFE TO SPEND MY ENTIRE LIFE CLEANING TOILETS. YOU PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK, EQUALITY IS A GIGANITC LIE.
China has less sweatshops than the world average, so China isn't a good example.
China's Unemployment has also been less than the USA and Europe for the last 30 years.
A third-world country isn't a poor rundown nation, rather it is a Cold War term for nations who kept Neutrality(Africa, South America). Communist countries were considered 2nd world, while Capitalists were considered 1st world.
Capitalism is not what it seems its worse because there is no unilateral consensus to preserve this earth which is going to one day run out of resources when there are too many people and not enough to go around, we should be promoting any population decrease and tell the Pope to go away because there is no point to religions which promote paganistic rituals in faith and worship that someone else is going to do anything for us all,
Almost 130 years after his death, the works of Karl Marx continue to be read in the best universities in the world. His legacy is unlikely to be challenged by you.
@redword2007 Listen here pal. No one. Calls. Me... Chicken. So go ahead, the discussion was issued at your behest. Make any claim in defense of the Marxist doctrine, and I will cut it to pieces.
Ok, let's have the discussion, and here's my prediction; you're going to tie yourself in knots and choose to extricate yourself by issuing cheap insults. Let's see.
You said Marx was "nothing more than a propagandist." I cited the fact that the world's leading universities continue to include his work on their reading lists. They obviously consider his work to have intellectual merit.
You claim that his work has no such merit. Substantiate your claim.
@redword2007 This is what you got? Are you cereal?... This argument falls into the ad populum fallacy. This approach is unsound because it claims something to be valid on grounds that a large multitude of people espouse it. According to your approach, anti-semitism was valid under the rule of the German Nazi Party. You say nothing about Marxism other than a lot of effete academic types buy into it. Remember when your mom said, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it too"?
So you're saying that the fact that most academic institutions consider Marx to have intellectual credibility, is evidence that he doesn't? That wouldn't make sense would it?
Here's why. You are not applying this particular fallacy correctly. Appeals in politics (and other areas for that matter) are non-fallacious if they are relevant. The views of professors of politics and philosphy on the intellectual credibility of a political and philosphical thinker are relevant.
@redword2007 I can see how I'm going to get tired of you real quick. 1. I said that Marxist popularity in academia does not necessarily make it credibile. Quite mistakenly, you've extrapolated this statement from my argument: If something is popular in academia, then it is without credibility.
@redword2007 2. Whether being a college professor gives one complete intellectual credibility, per se, is rather dubious. In an age of hyper-specialization, the assumption that any given professor will be sufficiently versed in logic, economics, and history is silly. Additionally, we are unaware of their motives for espousing Marx. Have they examined his doctrine closely, or are they caught up in some kind of 'working class' emotional frenzy.
@redword2007 However, all that I just used in my reply is superflous. The principle stands that your reasoning is fallacious because it doesn't support or detract from the specific doctrine under examination. You make no claims regarding the argument as such, proper, in and of itself. You expect your opponent to bow down to the Marxist propoganda simply because that some cocksuckers in the academy are in love with him.
I challenged you claim that Marx is "nothing more than a propagandist." You are keen to shift the debate for obvious reasons, but you don't get off the hook that easily.
Any standard logic textbook will tell you that 'non fallacious' examples of Ad Populum include those in which an authoritative group of people are in a position to know of what they speak. That is the case in the example I have cited.
@redword2007 Additionally, I wish to withdraw from this conversation. I have nothing to gain from it. You are clearly of an inferior intellect and ingenuity. The former evidenced in your rhetoric and the very fact that you find Marx credible. The latter evidenced in the fact that you actually maintain a youtube channel and seek out discussion with other members of the site.
Perhaps you would like an example of a specific authority? How about Princeton Professor and US diplomat Robert C Tucker? He said: "Marx has widely been thought of as one of the most influential thinkers in history, who has had a significant influence on both world politics and intellectual thought."
He went on: "Not to be well grounded in the writings of Marx and Engels is to be insufficiently attuned to modern thought."
Please stay focused. It is your claim that is under examination. Do you in fact have any evidence to support it? I can keep providing evidence to challenge it, but it is you who made it and who must substantiate it.
Is that it? You went from "listen here pal, no one calls me chicken, so go ahead" to "I wish to withdraw from this conversation" in 4 rather dull comments. Hardly evidence of your 'superior intellect'. lol
I'm guessing from the way that you express yourself that you are college kid. My friendly advice to you is think more before expressing yourself, focus on the issue and resist the temptation for ad hominem attacks and finally, have a little humility.
It's hardly surprising that someone who doesn't have the courage to have an argument, would also be the type of person to get his kicks abusing people from the safety of online anonymity. I have little respect for cowards.
You young girl who "lives" in western, you have no peace inside and anyway you get (in a long future) a "god" work anyway you will not have peace att all till you die.The childrens at the end of the video are cleaned and well dresed and they will have more peace than you in the rest of their lives,goodbye squizowesterngirl.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Kautsky, Bernstein, Korsch, Plekhanov, Lukacs, Rubin, Bukharin, Mandel, Marcuse, Hilferding, Luxemburg, Sweezy, Itoh, Jameson, Williams, Eagleton, Harvey, Benjamin, Zedong, Adorno, Horkheimer, Mannheim, Habermas, Fromm, Vazquez, etc. Haven't heard or read about any of these men? You have much studying to do...It took me few years just to read all four volumes of capital by Marx, I'm sure a person could not read up on all of the Marxist literature in a life time...
@iiNDiTC eg lenin totally misinterpreted marx' fetishim theory and prepared (partly also in thought) the sovjet dictatoship. i'm sure he also wrote good stuff, but sadly much of his bs is still unquestioned by many today.
also i wouldn't be so quick to judge on someone eleses reading/study because of some remarks... (btw: what ideas did zedong produce that are worth reading/taking into account in todays debates??)
Lenin once remarked, quite correctly, that it is virtually impossible to understand Marx's capital (all four volumes) without having read & studied Hegel's Logic. Lenin, unlike many other Marxists who did not pay much attention to the works of Hegel, understood and followed through Marx's methodology (the dialectic) because of his understanding of Hegel's works. Marx was not a Hegelian, but he did defend Hegel and called him a 'mighty thinker.' I think if youre interested in Marxism, read Hegel
Viva La Revolucion, motherfuckers! Workers of the world UNITE, we have nothing to lose, but our chains. I would rather be a motherfucking STRAY DOG, then a LAP DOG. I will lead the Revolution in the United States, that's a motherfucking promise!
You made some great points, but what is your opinion on this issues? Was it purely done for project or are you really impressed by philoshopy of Kark Marx?
What is your opinion on socialism?
Just courious,because you are a good speaker, and good to know about your professor. I hope you will continue to grow as creative thinker. Good Luck!
World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation's economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen." (Aldous Huxley)
Research Noel Ignatiev? Ask your teacher about Noel Ignatiev! Ask him about how the Commies outlawed religion and made Scientific Materialism state science!
She's cute but clueless. First of all, China's economy thrives off these sweat shops. Could you imagine if they all just disappeared or as Rand would say "Went Galt"? The poor workers would have absolutely no wages. This is because the money used to pay them comes from mostly first and a few second world countries. Sure Nike doesn't pay its workers well. I must agree but they are trying to make money. Holding these people up is not the corporation's job. It's to provide products and make money.
Great video. people today, especially young people(whose minds are still being constructed) don't realise the exploitation they are contributing to and they don't realise the exploitation they themselves will be subjected to at their one workplace.
@myseidel no it's not. it's called capitalism and has been for centuries. globalisation is something else (sure it affects capitalism, but they are not the same). also capitalism has not been evil just for the last 20 years...
people are not alienated because they work in sweatshops and get paid too little. they are alienated everywhere (also in whatever country this video was made) BECAUSE THEY GET PAID. marx did not want everybody to get what you might call fair wages (they can never be fair) he wanted (and he rarely states what that is, so this is just an assumption based on his critique) people to not get paid at all because that implies being exploited. marx wanted more than fair trade, he wanted real solutions
@AkivaII i'm not sure what you are getting at with the zero sum assumption. the symbiotic relationship is symbiotic in this way: the worker has no means but his own work to make a living and the "capitalist" needs workers produce goods (for him). the exploitation now is that the capitalist only pays the worker the price of his workpower not the value (and takes the surplus "for himself" (he reinvests most of it of course: accumulation)). exploitation is part of the symbiosis
@AkivaII exploitation doesnt require acknowlegement (in fact marx' fetishism-theory states that it is "hidden" so people normally dont realise they are exploitet/exploit). it is a "fact" and therefore marx doesnt want to judge when using the term exploitation.
in this context with zero sum means that the worker gets paid the value he gives to the company? that would be what marx wants to prove wrong with his exploitation theory. btw: hope i dont mix up terms as i read marx in german...
Zero Sum is synonymous with an objective theory of value, in that value can not be created in a simple exchange. Given the rather ambiguity of the term, perhaps it is best if I drop it for the time being, unless of course you wish to continue using it.
I do not understand though; Why would Marx not want to judge when using the term exploitation? Is that to say, he believed that third parties had no place interfering with the voluntary exchange of others?
@AkivaII well first of marx would not call it voluntary that workers exchange their work for money, they have to otherwise they would starve.
of course he judged capitalism also for the exploitation that comes along with it. but thats not the reason he chose the term exploitation, he just wants to critize (show how it works/its own contradictions) capitalism with that analysis. in fact he thought that capitalsm was a neccecity in human development (and admired it), but not its end...
I beg your pardon, this is perhaps beside the point, but I find it tremendously difficult to determine what social order did Marx prefer. Did he advocate central planning and large Socialist states, or was it those who were central planners who simply advocated Marxist rhetoric and epistemology? If you could help me in this, I would greatly appreciate it, for I was under the impression that he advocated a stateless society comprised of communes.
@AkivaII a lot of people (including me) would like to know that ;) but it is not possible to determin what he prefered. there are very little hints towards his idea of communism (especially in his later works which should be the point of reference as they differ from his ealier works (also including the much quoted manifesto)). one could say though he thought that a state would likely not be neccecary in a "community of freely associated individuals" (whatever that may be ;) ).
@AkivaII but the way the soviets organised their state/s was definitly not based on marx ideas/writings. they just used his name to justifiy their dictatorship.
marx proposes the "categorical imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved forsaken, despicable being" only that social order in which these conditions are met can be called communism. but he never formulated how that could be possible because he didn't think he could at that time
I suspected as much that the topic would remain in ambiguity. It is a shame with such writings that individuals can endeavor to interpret it in any number of ways.
If I may ask, in your opinion, what points of significant agreement and disagreement do you share with Marx? Additionally, should one hold Engels in the same high regard as Marx?
@AkivaII sorry it took me so long.. i'm still studying his ideas so i can't tell you yet what i agree with and what not. but i think one can get a lot of inspiration from them (especially from some more recent "marxists").
engels played a very important role not only in the "production" of marx' ideas but also in editing what marx left unfinished, but sadly he misinterpreted some of marx' ideas in his own writings (not comparable to the bs lenin worte, but still..)
@samsonispro1 BS Lenin wrote? Are you familiar with the works of Lenin? His writings on Tolstoy for example has been called brilliant by many "recent Marxists" and Marxologists such as Terry Eagleton, Ray Williams, David McLellan, Tom Bottomore, etc. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss something you have obviously not read, or read enough. There is a reason why many Marxists in the past century referred to themselves as Marxists-Lenninists!
While this video is interesting, it doesn't exactly touch on Marx's theory of alienation, which clearly in his works, does not just refer to market relations, but also, all relations that are debased, enslaved, and alienated, for example, in religion.
Marx was a quack. The people who take his mid-nineteenth century ideology seriously enough to teach it are quacks as well. It has never in history succeeded. Marxism belongs in history's dustbin of "smart people" failures and hippie stupiphanies. It appeals to elitist pseudo-intellectuals because it looks good on paper and puts them in charge of the money. Meanwhile, they are teaching this poor child to be an Occupier zombie.
@catchrnthkudzu and you'd be the Consumer zombie. Marxist ideology of class struggle and economic crisis is in today's forefront of the study of society's problems.
@scarface18707 Marxism is not an ideology. Now you may be using this term in a neutral sort of way, meaning a mode of belief or a set of ideas, but then why use the word ideology? Does it just sound more profound than saying ideas? Nonono, ideology is the belief that perspective is truth. Marx defines it in capital volume I (p.677) "they are categories for the forms of appearance of essential relations" or in other words, appearance parading as essence. Just an FYI, thanks :)
@scarface18707 The Matrix has you. I don't advocate consumerism because I don't rate my (or anyone's) worth or success by material possessions, but anyone should be able to own whatever they can afford. It's called freedom. Did you miss the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 which freed millions of Marxism's slaves?? Marxist bullies are the CAUSE of class struggle and economic crisis. Individual self interest, scorned by Marxism, raises "class" far more than charity and wasteful gov programs always
@kokkinochroma regulated capitalism can exist, you simply strongly regulate the banking sector. The current crisis is due to loss of regulation not a failure of capitalism itself.
Communism is a nice idea on paper, but in practice has failed every time. Human nature is aspirational that is how we have evolved. Remove the ability to advance and rewards for hard work and productivity plummets, society stagnates. An elite always exploits the system and gets richer under Communism.
@Alphaman7100 I'd add that NOT regulated capitalism can't exist. As for communism, you are funny: you invent your own American definition of communism and after that you criticize Marx for failing of YOUR non-Marxist communism, that exists only in your minds.
@tagaphon Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
@tagaphon How is it possible to know everything all at once, it would be any philosophers dream to exemplify everything inclusively, ism's are nothing but any teeny tiny glimpse within any intrinsic worldview, so what defines anything we are doing? Why any question, other than that we are any part of something within which we are being towed along without any sense within how it began, or where anything goes; Despotism is all inclusive within any and all material bondage' "Techovanity"
@DrFruedienslip Definition is working instrument of scientists. If 'cancer' for some doctors would mean 'caries' for other doctors, if metamizole would mean 'heroin' for some doctors, would you risk your life going to doctors?
@tagaphon Definition itself questions any sense within exemplifying any goal or definition within any purpose, any question demands any contextual connotation becoming any part within any definitve methodology within any exemplifications for any and all physical truths, no matter what is within any question within any concern' its not what anyone knows but within how anyone actually knows what they think about anything suppositional' any answer is "no"
@DrFruedienslip Exactly! All that bullshit with the multitude of complicated definitions of communism, socialism, capitalism is invented only for one purpose: to darken the sense, and in this case to hide the fact, that there is absolutely no sense. Instead of answering straight and clear whether you agree, that any science begins with definitions or you don't. Small notice, if you call what you just wrote science, I'd no more disturb you.
@tagaphon Onemight questionanything withinany andall regard withinwhat weare actuallydoing, anyorigination or any sense within any predictibility, science is within the word conscience and any science is within any genre within any discovery, however within any regards to capitalism it is all inclusive within any intent or motives ? within what weare and what we do, so what does any word represent when it comes to any physical experience? Social Physics is all inclusive withinanyphilsophizing?
@DrFruedienslip Dear Mrs Fucking, with best regards, you can't understand social physics without definitions, as well as social Chemistry, social Medicin, social Electricity and all that things. The best thing we just concider the meaning of definitions being rather of best value for human beings and first of all to capitalists which you trying to defend. I hope, you are not insulted cuz I slightly changed your definition? As you it is all inclusive within... so you know.
@tagaphon Any compliments are appreciated and non memorialized, dont we all know the same thing? That there is something wrong with any world where persons dont always get what anyone requires to live, like good jobs, good pay and love? Definitions would surely be unilateral if they actually exemplfy what can and does actually exist within which all persons would share anyconscious experience, its just toobroad to give it any name? Any context would be essential within any definitiveconnection.
@DrFruedienslip I don't care for ALL definitions. If there is science,there must be system of its definitions. U want them on your own? Be my guest. Anyone can have his system of definitions, even U.But it will be YOUR science. You are only one to praise and to blame for it. If u call something "socialism","capitalism" or "communism", don't forget to mention "by my definition". Marx has nothing to do with all that. It's not fair that Marx is blamed for science, somebody invented instead of his
@Alphaman7100 Even so in the capitalist system exist people which work and their studies, and work and yet they live on the poverty because people from high class stop the oportunity to others. We can see this around of us. Your logic is contradictory, I understand, there is a lot of things into communism is bad, because as Hegel said, every tesis brings the negation essence. Marx was not perfect, but his theories yet live. Sorry my english is bad.
@kokkinochroma the best system is a compromise between the two with regulated capitalism and a social safety net for only those in circumstances beyond their control. This should be accompanied by local and nationally accountable democracy. The real debate in the world today is not left vs right but globalisation Vs nationalism.
@kokkinochroma both global capitalism and global communism end up with the same outcome, a rich elite controlling and enslaving the people. The same elite wins either way, generally Jewish who are heavily involved in creating and promoting both of these systems.
Mass population movements break down national boundaries and community cohesion. A well known tactic of divide and rule used equally by global capitalism and global communism.
@kokkinochroma Global capitalism and global communism are both two sides of the same Jewish globalist coin to enslave and exploit the people. Population transfer was common in the USSR as a tool of divide and rule, not to mention the Gulags. The same is happening in the EU today against the will of the people.
Independence and nationalism is the only true solution for countries to maintain freedom from slavery.
@kokkinochroma Mass population movement within the artificially constructed USSR was a common tactic of divide and rule. Estimated at 6 million people in total. See the Wikipedia article 'Population transfer in the Soviet Union'. The EU is following the same framework that will end in mass ethnic conflict when it all breaks down, just like the Soviet Union.
Nobody is saying we must flood African countries with mass immigration to make them more multicultural. Nobody is saying we must flood Asian countries with mass immigration to make them more multicultural. Nobody is saying we must flood South American countries with mass immigration to make them more multicultural.
Multiculturalism and mass immigration into White countries and White countries only is GENOCIDE.
China fucked your country! You're in a crisis because millions of americans gave half of their money to China for stuff they don't even need. Thats a big part of the crisis xD
China has 9% gdp growth per year and more overweight children than the us. The building I live in has a garage full of audis, ferraris, and BMWs. Can I work I the sweatshop too?
ha, look at all of her "sweat shop" crap in the background. rock band, i think thats a sony tv, an ipod and the clothes. however, you are the cutest hypocrite on earth. It's one thing to be aware of the ills of the world and another thing to enact change. that being said, I'm going to get drunk and play xbox.
If all Westerns stopped buying stuff from China, that would be bad for their workers. Yes, many are slaves. Humans have been slaughtered and have died in the most horrendous of ways for thousands of years. Capitalism is just a small piece of that history. For example, under Mao Zedong killed 45 million of his own people from 1958-1962. Communism seeks to abolish private property, religion, family, morality, etc. It identifies certain problems, but its solutions are questionable -- at best.
@amamerc You're talking about a particular 'immplementation' of communism... in fact what occident came to call the eastern regimes. From a marxist point of view, it would be more proper to call them 'socialists', at best. But it's merely academical. Western capital today, holds together in a very great part, by the cheap labor, and cheap raw materials provided by the state capitalism prevailing in China. Saddly, China came to be the proof of Trotsky's statement that stalinism is
@levogiro I'm not sure if I implied Mao was a capitalist. Not much space to type. Rothbard considers him a "super-Stalinist," far worse than "socialist." I realize that capitalism created today's standard of living; there is no doubt about that. However, capitalism is not perfect, although this may largely be due to government, "counterfeit" fiat money, etc. Eg Eurozone is not capitalist, and is bad. Also, every country starts out like China: US used to be a quasi-3rd world nation in 18th cent.
@amamerc state capitalism. Today, China's state (note i'm not saying china's government), is the greatest corporation in all the planet, the CCP, the greatest directing board, and china's working class, is the most overexploited worker class in the world. That's where the stalinist thesis of socialism in one country has led china. To be the greatest combinat in the history of the human kind, providing outsource to capital in crisis, everywhere in the world.
@amamerc That only will end if and only if China's workers stand on their own and claim what's trully theirs. (And personally, I would love to see many of China's bureaucrats hanging from their balls on public squares... but yes!... I know this is bad! Just among us!! shhhh! xD)
You are right most things we consume are made in 'sweatshops' but i think you have, as Marx did, no basic understanding of how economics actually works.
"Remember what sufferings you are debtor, while enjoying its fruits ... Go to the textile mills, the mills, the cotton plantations, workers spend decades, his entire life in dusty, sweltering rooms or under the fire of the sun every day doing the same stupid and desperating job, with no prospect of a release, without the possibility of spiritual development ... Put yourself in the situation of these men and think for a moment that you can not live without clothes "
Those people in Asia would be dead now if we actually cared and paid over-prices for cloths made by out friends. Socialism would have killed em.
Transnational corporations pay far higher wages then national corporations in poor countries and the only reason the workers would stay poor is if there government is socialist.
In other places it works fine. Taiwan had sweatshops two generations ago, now the children of those sweatshop workers have a college education and work developing electronics...
please post a video of the sweater you are going to make and all your other homemade clothes......socks,shirts,underwear and shoes,and while your at it......how bout you make your own television !!! your philosophy teacher is a communist !!!
@Mushkenu it is true that product, direct and indirect labor costs should be a factor, but it isn't a major factor in determining value. Time preferences, popular trend, and utility all explain how some things are worth more at one time than another time, and they may be worth more at one place than another place.
@MrBigEnchilada Actually it IS major factor determining the value. English has tow words to explain the difference: Worth and value. Main utility value of a product determine the surplus value of exploitation. But when product came to market its "worth" changes according to other factors. This kind of market rules benefits the capitalist in short terms, so crisis' main reason depends on this. In market product become different thing than its own essence.(contnues)
@MrBigEnchilada this also explained by Marx in the term of "commodity fetishism". Although there is other factors which determines products worth, it changes nothing on basis of capitalist exploitation of labour. Coz market benefits is not changing the workers' situation a bit. Moreover machinery raises rate of explotation. Also explained by Marx.
what you do is you be prepared while we lobby for increased taxation on companies who hire overseas since we can't do it through Tariffs. Then your competitors will get the same reality check as you.... prices will have to climb to an equilibrium that can support US worker collective bargaining. You as a US investor should be for this as well, because it will punish those competitors who are beating you by using cheaper labor than you. Got it?
your emphasis on alienation is definitely correct, there isolation we have from the products that we buy (like packaged foods) are causing lots of problems. However, Marxian theory of labor value is not correct, his idea that people shouldn't make surplus value is not correct.
On the other hand, I hate people who call names "omfg your a communist" implying that "you must be wrong cuz u think that way".
I prefer people who engage in valuable discussion instead of accusation.
Can't Anybody See? its not Al-Qaeda, its not Iran, nor is it our Housing Market, nor Our Unemployment! It is Our 'DEBT' that is Killing us! We were Suppose to Stop this Madness at 14 trillion dollars in Debt! we are almost 16 trillion in Debt! WHEN IS IT GOING TO STOP! Our Debt is Going to DESTROY US! Not COMMUNISM, Not TERRORISM, Our DEBT!
TyroneMBL989 20 hours ago
We are Basically Supporting 'CHINA' and They are Basically Supporting us...We (the United States)are No Longer 14 trillion dollars in Debt! We are Going on 16 trillion dollars in Debt! and well,"CHINA", they don't have any Debt! They have about 3 trillion dollars in the Bank! All from the United States,We are Practically Building their Country for Them.Thats Where China Gets all their Money,From US! Every Single Day,China's Bank Account Grows "One Billion Dollars",While we Keep DROWNING IN DEBT!
TyroneMBL989 20 hours ago
This is What "CAPITALISM" is all About! It is About"Making the Most Money Possible".And when things Get too"Expensive"in the United States(which they are)People are Going to Start Looking Elsewhere...I Don't think Our Fathers, Who Created this Great Country( George Washington,Benjamin Franklin,and Thomas Jefferson ) Created it So that 300 years Later, Our Economy would be Dependent on "India" and "China". All India and China has to do is Say "NO", and Our Economy would Completely Collapse!
TyroneMBL989 20 hours ago
Let's say you Create a Company and you "NEED" to Hire 300 Engineer's.? Are you Going to Hire 300 Engineer's in the "United States" for around $80,000 dollars a year, or, Are you Going to Hire 300 Engineer's in "India" or "China" for around $20,000 dollars a year.? Everybody Knows the Answer to that! This is Why Nothing is Being made in the United States Anymore. This is Why all our Manufacturing Jobs are Leaving the Country. It's Not about "Sweat Shops", its just "CHEAPER", Plain and Simple...
TyroneMBL989 20 hours ago
I've been to assembly lines in china. They're not great. But they're not starving. They can afford meals and are able to save money. Obviously they wouldn't work if they were "Starvation wages".
edwinorc 5 days ago
Making those shirts is the best prospect those people have. Take it away they'll have nothing. (Actually though, the Chinese could just stop exporting as much to the U.S. since our currency is worthless. But it's their government that's screwing them in that respect, not capitalism.)
dubified89 5 days ago
marx was a JEW who gave rise to COMMUNISM which KILLED 100,000,000 PEOPLE !! isnt that worse than not knowing where your 60 dollar shirt came from ???
WaltherP99100 1 week ago
@WaltherP99100 When will anti-communist arguments stop relying on the fallacies of certain rulers and actually disprove its innate merits? Never?
EmilioCasavegas 1 week ago
Wow, you are an marxist! Or socialist! Or communist! That's so unpopular in USA
mappingtheshit 1 week ago
Karl Marx was a Jew who would destroy white civilization.
Dye6666 1 week ago
Good points, I hadn't thought about the identity issue at all but I can see how the two interconnect. Maybe if more Americans made their own clothes we would stop being so depressed all the time
xmmh 2 weeks ago
Good explanation of the theory. Of course, I have serious, serious doubts about the theory.
For one, I think it's incredibly superficial to just call it a "raw deal" if the workers can't purchase the product into which they input labor. There are many inputs that go into selling a T-shirt, and labor is only one. There's capital, transportation, warehousing, etc. Marx simply made the crude assumption that only labor "really" produces output, but such an assumption is idiotic...
migkillertwo 2 weeks ago
...and was painfully demonstrated in the very early days of the Soviet Union, before Lenin had to institute an economic system that was, ultimately, state-capitalism rather than an attempt at true socialism.
Secondly, I don't buy the notion that brands like American Eagle tell us what we should want. Clothes have more function these days than keeping you warm and decent, they're status symbols, and humans have been using such symbols as long as they've existed. It isn't exactly unique to...
migkillertwo 2 weeks ago
...the "capitalist mode of production."
migkillertwo 2 weeks ago
Marx was a stupid =)
the1internet1is1gay 2 weeks ago
Nice vid. Great points. Marx had a lot of things going for him but he got a bad rap because he didn't INSIST that the state must perish. Not after the dictatorship of the proletariat but NOW.
You're a very intelligent woman, just be wary of the labor theory of value. It'll lead you astray
TwinMoons2121 2 weeks ago
if you're still in high school -- you should apply to the ILR school at cornell university. think you'd fit right in!
44kooks 2 weeks ago
the moment u said we dont make what we wear, tears came out of my eyes
seennlisten 2 weeks ago
20 bucks says that this girl will be the typical overweight, ugly, and disheveled liberal girl in 3 years max. The clock is ticking on you.
stebecool 3 weeks ago
My dick is the only reason why I watched this video
stebecool 3 weeks ago
I don't care about working class people.
the1internet1is1gay 3 weeks ago
Your sexy as fuck
LazerJames 3 weeks ago
@LazerJames LOL ur a pedophile
the1internet1is1gay 3 weeks ago
@the1internet1is1gay What, because she's 17? Come on
metalandsportsgaming 2 weeks ago
@metalandsportsgaming Stfu you sick pedo.
the1internet1is1gay 2 weeks ago
mamasota
flaconcho11 3 weeks ago
Marx said industrialization negates socialism - so a country has to go through the capitalist stage before it goes through the socialist stage. This, in a sense, is why Chinese and Indian attempts at socialism failed. However now Chinese and Indian workers are industrializing they will form trade unions and fund political parties which in turn will call for universal suffrage i.e. real and meaningful democracy.Hence, Globalization negates the final stage of capitalism.
32peartree 1 month ago 7
Marxist communism is THE ULTIMATE ALIENATION!
fatty099 1 month ago
If you want people to take you seriously, please know something about the countries you mention and use correct terminology because you put a lot of countries into the same bandwagon as sweatshop countries and a lot of companies in the same category as sweatshop users
randikajamai 1 month ago
A pretty communist for a change.
ooohpie 1 month ago
localisation not globalisation.
godkingRoss 1 month ago
@Klauwsawitzz of course, because when the people who use the toilets are in charge, they will want the toilets dirty! You're such a genius! Go tell it to fox news I bet they'd love it!
hotverde15 1 month ago
OMG this was soooo helpful , Wikipedia gave sooo much relating to this . this was far more easy to understand :D
Ainvolk08 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SOME POOR WRETCHED COMMUNIST STILL IS GOING TO HAVE TO CLEAN PUBLIC TOILETS, OR DO COMMUNIST NOT SHIT? I WOULD IMAGINE COMMUNAL TOILETS WOULD BECOME ESPECIALLY DISCUSTING, IF YOU DID'NT OWN THE TOILET YOU WERE CRAPPING IN THAN WHY NOT SPRAY DIARRHEA ALL OVER THE BOWL?I'M GLAD THERE IS NOT SOME FUCKING COMMUNIST COMMITY WHO WILL DECIDE IF ITS MY LOT IN LIFE TO SPEND MY ENTIRE LIFE CLEANING TOILETS. YOU PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK, EQUALITY IS A GIGANITC LIE.
Klauwsawitzz 1 month ago
hot girl+marxism=win!
capnwhitewidow 1 month ago
@capnwhitewidow lol, indeed.
distopiadnb 1 month ago
China has less sweatshops than the world average, so China isn't a good example.
China's Unemployment has also been less than the USA and Europe for the last 30 years.
A third-world country isn't a poor rundown nation, rather it is a Cold War term for nations who kept Neutrality(Africa, South America). Communist countries were considered 2nd world, while Capitalists were considered 1st world.
havee3333333 1 month ago
Capitalism is not what it seems its worse because there is no unilateral consensus to preserve this earth which is going to one day run out of resources when there are too many people and not enough to go around, we should be promoting any population decrease and tell the Pope to go away because there is no point to religions which promote paganistic rituals in faith and worship that someone else is going to do anything for us all,
Intelligence is all inclusive
DrFruedienslip 1 month ago
Karl Marx was nothing more than a propagandist. His theories are utterly ridden with fallacy.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
Almost 130 years after his death, the works of Karl Marx continue to be read in the best universities in the world. His legacy is unlikely to be challenged by you.
redword2007 1 month ago
@redword2007 You stupid twat. You don't even realize the statement you made uses the ad populum fallacy. I'll go 20 against a 10 on that one.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
I'm happy to discuss with you, but could we do it without the gratuitous insults?
redword2007 1 month ago
redword2007 I disagree. The insult was completely merited. And we can't discuss anything too complex in 487 characters or less.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
You insist on being insulting as it enables you to neatly avoid having to enter into a discussion that would expose your lack of knowledge.
You probably think it helps you to save face, but it doesn't. It exposes you as a coward.
redword2007 1 month ago
@redword2007 Listen here pal. No one. Calls. Me... Chicken. So go ahead, the discussion was issued at your behest. Make any claim in defense of the Marxist doctrine, and I will cut it to pieces.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
Ok, let's have the discussion, and here's my prediction; you're going to tie yourself in knots and choose to extricate yourself by issuing cheap insults. Let's see.
You said Marx was "nothing more than a propagandist." I cited the fact that the world's leading universities continue to include his work on their reading lists. They obviously consider his work to have intellectual merit.
You claim that his work has no such merit. Substantiate your claim.
redword2007 1 month ago
@redword2007 This is what you got? Are you cereal?... This argument falls into the ad populum fallacy. This approach is unsound because it claims something to be valid on grounds that a large multitude of people espouse it. According to your approach, anti-semitism was valid under the rule of the German Nazi Party. You say nothing about Marxism other than a lot of effete academic types buy into it. Remember when your mom said, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it too"?
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
So you're saying that the fact that most academic institutions consider Marx to have intellectual credibility, is evidence that he doesn't? That wouldn't make sense would it?
Here's why. You are not applying this particular fallacy correctly. Appeals in politics (and other areas for that matter) are non-fallacious if they are relevant. The views of professors of politics and philosphy on the intellectual credibility of a political and philosphical thinker are relevant.
redword2007 1 month ago
@redword2007 I can see how I'm going to get tired of you real quick. 1. I said that Marxist popularity in academia does not necessarily make it credibile. Quite mistakenly, you've extrapolated this statement from my argument: If something is popular in academia, then it is without credibility.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@redword2007 2. Whether being a college professor gives one complete intellectual credibility, per se, is rather dubious. In an age of hyper-specialization, the assumption that any given professor will be sufficiently versed in logic, economics, and history is silly. Additionally, we are unaware of their motives for espousing Marx. Have they examined his doctrine closely, or are they caught up in some kind of 'working class' emotional frenzy.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@redword2007 However, all that I just used in my reply is superflous. The principle stands that your reasoning is fallacious because it doesn't support or detract from the specific doctrine under examination. You make no claims regarding the argument as such, proper, in and of itself. You expect your opponent to bow down to the Marxist propoganda simply because that some cocksuckers in the academy are in love with him.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
I challenged you claim that Marx is "nothing more than a propagandist." You are keen to shift the debate for obvious reasons, but you don't get off the hook that easily.
Any standard logic textbook will tell you that 'non fallacious' examples of Ad Populum include those in which an authoritative group of people are in a position to know of what they speak. That is the case in the example I have cited.
redword2007 1 month ago
@redword2007 Additionally, I wish to withdraw from this conversation. I have nothing to gain from it. You are clearly of an inferior intellect and ingenuity. The former evidenced in your rhetoric and the very fact that you find Marx credible. The latter evidenced in the fact that you actually maintain a youtube channel and seek out discussion with other members of the site.
FIN
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
Perhaps you would like an example of a specific authority? How about Princeton Professor and US diplomat Robert C Tucker? He said: "Marx has widely been thought of as one of the most influential thinkers in history, who has had a significant influence on both world politics and intellectual thought."
He went on: "Not to be well grounded in the writings of Marx and Engels is to be insufficiently attuned to modern thought."
redword2007 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
Please stay focused. It is your claim that is under examination. Do you in fact have any evidence to support it? I can keep providing evidence to challenge it, but it is you who made it and who must substantiate it.
redword2007 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
Is that it? You went from "listen here pal, no one calls me chicken, so go ahead" to "I wish to withdraw from this conversation" in 4 rather dull comments. Hardly evidence of your 'superior intellect'. lol
I'm guessing from the way that you express yourself that you are college kid. My friendly advice to you is think more before expressing yourself, focus on the issue and resist the temptation for ad hominem attacks and finally, have a little humility.
redword2007 1 month ago
@redword2007 Fuck your tired ass advice
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
It's hardly surprising that someone who doesn't have the courage to have an argument, would also be the type of person to get his kicks abusing people from the safety of online anonymity. I have little respect for cowards.
redword2007 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited Chickenshit.
Keepsu 1 month ago
@Keepsu Dicksuck
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
She's not cute enough to be this stooopid.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
You young girl who "lives" in western, you have no peace inside and anyway you get (in a long future) a "god" work anyway you will not have peace att all till you die.The childrens at the end of the video are cleaned and well dresed and they will have more peace than you in the rest of their lives,goodbye squizowesterngirl.
Richard678 2 months ago
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Kautsky, Bernstein, Korsch, Plekhanov, Lukacs, Rubin, Bukharin, Mandel, Marcuse, Hilferding, Luxemburg, Sweezy, Itoh, Jameson, Williams, Eagleton, Harvey, Benjamin, Zedong, Adorno, Horkheimer, Mannheim, Habermas, Fromm, Vazquez, etc. Haven't heard or read about any of these men? You have much studying to do...It took me few years just to read all four volumes of capital by Marx, I'm sure a person could not read up on all of the Marxist literature in a life time...
iiNDiTC 2 months ago
@iiNDiTC eg lenin totally misinterpreted marx' fetishim theory and prepared (partly also in thought) the sovjet dictatoship. i'm sure he also wrote good stuff, but sadly much of his bs is still unquestioned by many today.
also i wouldn't be so quick to judge on someone eleses reading/study because of some remarks... (btw: what ideas did zedong produce that are worth reading/taking into account in todays debates??)
samsonispro1 2 months ago
Lenin once remarked, quite correctly, that it is virtually impossible to understand Marx's capital (all four volumes) without having read & studied Hegel's Logic. Lenin, unlike many other Marxists who did not pay much attention to the works of Hegel, understood and followed through Marx's methodology (the dialectic) because of his understanding of Hegel's works. Marx was not a Hegelian, but he did defend Hegel and called him a 'mighty thinker.' I think if youre interested in Marxism, read Hegel
iiNDiTC 2 months ago
Viva La Revolucion, motherfuckers! Workers of the world UNITE, we have nothing to lose, but our chains. I would rather be a motherfucking STRAY DOG, then a LAP DOG. I will lead the Revolution in the United States, that's a motherfucking promise!
chris96kalonji 2 months ago
Well done.
KOGR11 2 months ago
You made some great points, but what is your opinion on this issues? Was it purely done for project or are you really impressed by philoshopy of Kark Marx?
What is your opinion on socialism?
Just courious,because you are a good speaker, and good to know about your professor. I hope you will continue to grow as creative thinker. Good Luck!
sulab08 2 months ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthewwp56 this is EXACTLY why the monetary system MUST go!
a2zhandi 2 months ago
Comment removed
a2zhandi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation's economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen." (Aldous Huxley)
arzoyan 2 months ago
She’s so DAM cute, X_x
yeah, I’m only buying NZ or Aussie products. Sick and tired of products falling apart after using them once or twice.
look after your citizens first!
john1962712 2 months ago
lol@ the disgusted look on her face when she holds up the abercrombie and finch shirt
Drarack 2 months ago
Research Noel Ignatiev? Ask your teacher about Noel Ignatiev! Ask him about how the Commies outlawed religion and made Scientific Materialism state science!
Find out who you are!
/watch?v=dlsB1_F5o3A
MrWatchdawg77 2 months ago
She's cute but clueless. First of all, China's economy thrives off these sweat shops. Could you imagine if they all just disappeared or as Rand would say "Went Galt"? The poor workers would have absolutely no wages. This is because the money used to pay them comes from mostly first and a few second world countries. Sure Nike doesn't pay its workers well. I must agree but they are trying to make money. Holding these people up is not the corporation's job. It's to provide products and make money.
funfun5656 2 months ago
@funfun5656 You could use exactly that same argument to justify slavery. It's not the point. Exploitation is in itself immoral.
blackmichael75 2 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
╭∩╮（︶︿︶）╭∩╮ ---> CAPITALISM & COMMUNISM not EQUAL..!!!
DRUGLORDS+GOVERNMENT is COUNTERFEITING MONEY for SLAVERY..!!
BANKERS & DRUGLORDS screwed life & society in human history.
BURN DRUG LORDS ALIVE & OCCUPY THE WORLD..!!
CAPITALISM = NO REAL FREEDOM. WORLDS FAKE ECONOMY.
fight for LAST DROP BLOOD for MONEY & POWER = OPPORTUNIST LANDLORD GRABBER PIG ROYAL LAZY FAMILY.
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
kopellhinex 2 months ago
Marx - Marxism. Clueless as to who he, or his ideology is.
RichardCoughlan101 2 months ago
Very cute girl comrade!
GenoParis45 2 months ago
Great video. people today, especially young people(whose minds are still being constructed) don't realise the exploitation they are contributing to and they don't realise the exploitation they themselves will be subjected to at their one workplace.
DrowningArt94 2 months ago
Post a pretty face, suggnely get views.
doe791 2 months ago
it's called globalism :)
myseidel 2 months ago
@myseidel Or, Globalization ;) sorry if i come off as an stick up the ass ;)
DrowningArt94 2 months ago
@myseidel no it's not. it's called capitalism and has been for centuries. globalisation is something else (sure it affects capitalism, but they are not the same). also capitalism has not been evil just for the last 20 years...
samsonispro1 2 months ago
We're all going to be communists whether we like it or not, apparently. Ivy League schools have set the bar.
jerbear82 2 months ago
people are not alienated because they work in sweatshops and get paid too little. they are alienated everywhere (also in whatever country this video was made) BECAUSE THEY GET PAID. marx did not want everybody to get what you might call fair wages (they can never be fair) he wanted (and he rarely states what that is, so this is just an assumption based on his critique) people to not get paid at all because that implies being exploited. marx wanted more than fair trade, he wanted real solutions
samsonispro1 2 months ago
@samsonispro1
Does exploitation work under the assumption of a "Zero Sum", or can a symbiotic relationship also qualify itself as being exploitative?
Respectfully.
AkivaII 2 months ago
@AkivaII i'm not sure what you are getting at with the zero sum assumption. the symbiotic relationship is symbiotic in this way: the worker has no means but his own work to make a living and the "capitalist" needs workers produce goods (for him). the exploitation now is that the capitalist only pays the worker the price of his workpower not the value (and takes the surplus "for himself" (he reinvests most of it of course: accumulation)). exploitation is part of the symbiosis
samsonispro1 2 months ago
@samsonispro1
Thank you for your apt response. I beg your pardon, "Zero Sum" is the idea that all exchanges are neutral in regards to revenue.
Does exploitation exist intrinsically in reality, or does it require acknowledgement by the exploited party?
Respectfully.
AkivaII 2 months ago
@AkivaII exploitation doesnt require acknowlegement (in fact marx' fetishism-theory states that it is "hidden" so people normally dont realise they are exploitet/exploit). it is a "fact" and therefore marx doesnt want to judge when using the term exploitation.
in this context with zero sum means that the worker gets paid the value he gives to the company? that would be what marx wants to prove wrong with his exploitation theory. btw: hope i dont mix up terms as i read marx in german...
samsonispro1 2 months ago
@samsonispro1
Zero Sum is synonymous with an objective theory of value, in that value can not be created in a simple exchange. Given the rather ambiguity of the term, perhaps it is best if I drop it for the time being, unless of course you wish to continue using it.
I do not understand though; Why would Marx not want to judge when using the term exploitation? Is that to say, he believed that third parties had no place interfering with the voluntary exchange of others?
Regards.
AkivaII 2 months ago
@AkivaII well first of marx would not call it voluntary that workers exchange their work for money, they have to otherwise they would starve.
of course he judged capitalism also for the exploitation that comes along with it. but thats not the reason he chose the term exploitation, he just wants to critize (show how it works/its own contradictions) capitalism with that analysis. in fact he thought that capitalsm was a neccecity in human development (and admired it), but not its end...
samsonispro1 2 months ago
@samsonispro1
I beg your pardon, this is perhaps beside the point, but I find it tremendously difficult to determine what social order did Marx prefer. Did he advocate central planning and large Socialist states, or was it those who were central planners who simply advocated Marxist rhetoric and epistemology? If you could help me in this, I would greatly appreciate it, for I was under the impression that he advocated a stateless society comprised of communes.
Regards.
AkivaII 2 months ago
@AkivaII a lot of people (including me) would like to know that ;) but it is not possible to determin what he prefered. there are very little hints towards his idea of communism (especially in his later works which should be the point of reference as they differ from his ealier works (also including the much quoted manifesto)). one could say though he thought that a state would likely not be neccecary in a "community of freely associated individuals" (whatever that may be ;) ).
samsonispro1 2 months ago
@AkivaII but the way the soviets organised their state/s was definitly not based on marx ideas/writings. they just used his name to justifiy their dictatorship.
marx proposes the "categorical imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved forsaken, despicable being" only that social order in which these conditions are met can be called communism. but he never formulated how that could be possible because he didn't think he could at that time
samsonispro1 2 months ago
@samsonispro1
I suspected as much that the topic would remain in ambiguity. It is a shame with such writings that individuals can endeavor to interpret it in any number of ways.
If I may ask, in your opinion, what points of significant agreement and disagreement do you share with Marx? Additionally, should one hold Engels in the same high regard as Marx?
Regards.
AkivaII 2 months ago
@AkivaII sorry it took me so long.. i'm still studying his ideas so i can't tell you yet what i agree with and what not. but i think one can get a lot of inspiration from them (especially from some more recent "marxists").
engels played a very important role not only in the "production" of marx' ideas but also in editing what marx left unfinished, but sadly he misinterpreted some of marx' ideas in his own writings (not comparable to the bs lenin worte, but still..)
merry christmas! =)
samsonispro1 2 months ago
@samsonispro1
Thank you for your kind response; perhaps we should endeavor to discuss this again some time.
Regards, & Happy Chanukah.
AkivaII 2 months ago
@samsonispro1 BS Lenin wrote? Are you familiar with the works of Lenin? His writings on Tolstoy for example has been called brilliant by many "recent Marxists" and Marxologists such as Terry Eagleton, Ray Williams, David McLellan, Tom Bottomore, etc. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss something you have obviously not read, or read enough. There is a reason why many Marxists in the past century referred to themselves as Marxists-Lenninists!
iiNDiTC 2 months ago
While this video is interesting, it doesn't exactly touch on Marx's theory of alienation, which clearly in his works, does not just refer to market relations, but also, all relations that are debased, enslaved, and alienated, for example, in religion.
iiNDiTC 2 months ago
Another fellow student that learns of real Communism and Marxism is always appreciated.
scarface18707 2 months ago
84 people needs to watch it again to understand the point, or perhaps these 84 people operate sweat shops.
prolet0222 2 months ago
Marx was a quack. The people who take his mid-nineteenth century ideology seriously enough to teach it are quacks as well. It has never in history succeeded. Marxism belongs in history's dustbin of "smart people" failures and hippie stupiphanies. It appeals to elitist pseudo-intellectuals because it looks good on paper and puts them in charge of the money. Meanwhile, they are teaching this poor child to be an Occupier zombie.
catchrnthkudzu 2 months ago
@catchrnthkudzu and you'd be the Consumer zombie. Marxist ideology of class struggle and economic crisis is in today's forefront of the study of society's problems.
scarface18707 2 months ago
@scarface18707 Marxism is not an ideology. Now you may be using this term in a neutral sort of way, meaning a mode of belief or a set of ideas, but then why use the word ideology? Does it just sound more profound than saying ideas? Nonono, ideology is the belief that perspective is truth. Marx defines it in capital volume I (p.677) "they are categories for the forms of appearance of essential relations" or in other words, appearance parading as essence. Just an FYI, thanks :)
iiNDiTC 2 months ago
@scarface18707 The Matrix has you. I don't advocate consumerism because I don't rate my (or anyone's) worth or success by material possessions, but anyone should be able to own whatever they can afford. It's called freedom. Did you miss the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 which freed millions of Marxism's slaves?? Marxist bullies are the CAUSE of class struggle and economic crisis. Individual self interest, scorned by Marxism, raises "class" far more than charity and wasteful gov programs always
catchrnthkudzu 2 months ago
Wow a smart pretty girl. I think I'm in love.
chivo1080 2 months ago
Shut up
SomeUser9753 3 months ago
80% of the world's population lives on less than 10$ daily, while 42% live on less than 2.50$ daily.
Even though we have the technical means to provide everyone with the basic necessities of life..
silversobe 3 months ago
you are so beatiful when you speak about this...
dobledosis1 3 months ago
@kokkinochroma regulated capitalism can exist, you simply strongly regulate the banking sector. The current crisis is due to loss of regulation not a failure of capitalism itself.
Communism is a nice idea on paper, but in practice has failed every time. Human nature is aspirational that is how we have evolved. Remove the ability to advance and rewards for hard work and productivity plummets, society stagnates. An elite always exploits the system and gets richer under Communism.
Alphaman7100 3 months ago
@Alphaman7100 I'd add that NOT regulated capitalism can't exist. As for communism, you are funny: you invent your own American definition of communism and after that you criticize Marx for failing of YOUR non-Marxist communism, that exists only in your minds.
tagaphon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tagaphon Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
I pay you € 1.000.000, if you are able to.
joaquinveyron 3 months ago
@tagaphon How is it possible to know everything all at once, it would be any philosophers dream to exemplify everything inclusively, ism's are nothing but any teeny tiny glimpse within any intrinsic worldview, so what defines anything we are doing? Why any question, other than that we are any part of something within which we are being towed along without any sense within how it began, or where anything goes; Despotism is all inclusive within any and all material bondage' "Techovanity"
DrFruedienslip 3 months ago
@DrFruedienslip Definition is working instrument of scientists. If 'cancer' for some doctors would mean 'caries' for other doctors, if metamizole would mean 'heroin' for some doctors, would you risk your life going to doctors?
tagaphon 3 months ago
@tagaphon Definition itself questions any sense within exemplifying any goal or definition within any purpose, any question demands any contextual connotation becoming any part within any definitve methodology within any exemplifications for any and all physical truths, no matter what is within any question within any concern' its not what anyone knows but within how anyone actually knows what they think about anything suppositional' any answer is "no"
DrFruedienslip 3 months ago
@DrFruedienslip Exactly! All that bullshit with the multitude of complicated definitions of communism, socialism, capitalism is invented only for one purpose: to darken the sense, and in this case to hide the fact, that there is absolutely no sense. Instead of answering straight and clear whether you agree, that any science begins with definitions or you don't. Small notice, if you call what you just wrote science, I'd no more disturb you.
tagaphon 3 months ago
@tagaphon Onemight questionanything withinany andall regard withinwhat weare actuallydoing, anyorigination or any sense within any predictibility, science is within the word conscience and any science is within any genre within any discovery, however within any regards to capitalism it is all inclusive within any intent or motives ? within what weare and what we do, so what does any word represent when it comes to any physical experience? Social Physics is all inclusive withinanyphilsophizing?
DrFruedienslip 2 months ago
@DrFruedienslip Dear Mrs Fucking, with best regards, you can't understand social physics without definitions, as well as social Chemistry, social Medicin, social Electricity and all that things. The best thing we just concider the meaning of definitions being rather of best value for human beings and first of all to capitalists which you trying to defend. I hope, you are not insulted cuz I slightly changed your definition? As you it is all inclusive within... so you know.
tagaphon 2 months ago
@tagaphon Any compliments are appreciated and non memorialized, dont we all know the same thing? That there is something wrong with any world where persons dont always get what anyone requires to live, like good jobs, good pay and love? Definitions would surely be unilateral if they actually exemplfy what can and does actually exist within which all persons would share anyconscious experience, its just toobroad to give it any name? Any context would be essential within any definitiveconnection.
DrFruedienslip 2 months ago
@DrFruedienslip I don't care for ALL definitions. If there is science,there must be system of its definitions. U want them on your own? Be my guest. Anyone can have his system of definitions, even U.But it will be YOUR science. You are only one to praise and to blame for it. If u call something "socialism","capitalism" or "communism", don't forget to mention "by my definition". Marx has nothing to do with all that. It's not fair that Marx is blamed for science, somebody invented instead of his
tagaphon 2 months ago
@Alphaman7100 Even so in the capitalist system exist people which work and their studies, and work and yet they live on the poverty because people from high class stop the oportunity to others. We can see this around of us. Your logic is contradictory, I understand, there is a lot of things into communism is bad, because as Hegel said, every tesis brings the negation essence. Marx was not perfect, but his theories yet live. Sorry my english is bad.
lestatelvampiro 3 months ago
@kokkinochroma the best system is a compromise between the two with regulated capitalism and a social safety net for only those in circumstances beyond their control. This should be accompanied by local and nationally accountable democracy. The real debate in the world today is not left vs right but globalisation Vs nationalism.
Alphaman7100 3 months ago
@kokkinochroma both global capitalism and global communism end up with the same outcome, a rich elite controlling and enslaving the people. The same elite wins either way, generally Jewish who are heavily involved in creating and promoting both of these systems.
Mass population movements break down national boundaries and community cohesion. A well known tactic of divide and rule used equally by global capitalism and global communism.
Alphaman7100 3 months ago
@kokkinochroma Global capitalism and global communism are both two sides of the same Jewish globalist coin to enslave and exploit the people. Population transfer was common in the USSR as a tool of divide and rule, not to mention the Gulags. The same is happening in the EU today against the will of the people.
Independence and nationalism is the only true solution for countries to maintain freedom from slavery.
Alphaman7100 3 months ago
@kokkinochroma Mass population movement within the artificially constructed USSR was a common tactic of divide and rule. Estimated at 6 million people in total. See the Wikipedia article 'Population transfer in the Soviet Union'. The EU is following the same framework that will end in mass ethnic conflict when it all breaks down, just like the Soviet Union.
Alphaman7100 3 months ago
Nobody is saying we must flood African countries with mass immigration to make them more multicultural. Nobody is saying we must flood Asian countries with mass immigration to make them more multicultural. Nobody is saying we must flood South American countries with mass immigration to make them more multicultural.
Multiculturalism and mass immigration into White countries and White countries only is GENOCIDE.
Anti racism is a code word for anti White.
Alphaman7100 3 months ago
nice pc and house u got btw
jon3m2007 3 months ago
@jon3m2007 you're literally an idiot
jessicawalker100 3 months ago
I saw XS but u dont look like a big girl??? were those pants not yer own??
jon3m2007 3 months ago
China fucked your country! You're in a crisis because millions of americans gave half of their money to China for stuff they don't even need. Thats a big part of the crisis xD
machinevos 3 months ago
What is the solution to this mania?
schlachthauz 3 months ago
u speak like Malcolm in the middle. u cute
apikopboy7 3 months ago
You're attractive and intelligent. A rare combination! Congratulations.
owenivor 3 months ago
China has 9% gdp growth per year and more overweight children than the us. The building I live in has a garage full of audis, ferraris, and BMWs. Can I work I the sweatshop too?
mcshorty28 3 months ago
@mcshorty28 Yes and they live in gold....
Nightmeare 3 months ago
Marx is probablly rolling in his grave now lol it's hard to swallow the fact that anyone can deduce marx in such a banal way !
truesemite 3 months ago
ha, look at all of her "sweat shop" crap in the background. rock band, i think thats a sony tv, an ipod and the clothes. however, you are the cutest hypocrite on earth. It's one thing to be aware of the ills of the world and another thing to enact change. that being said, I'm going to get drunk and play xbox.
a2r1v1i2s 3 months ago
i give u an assignment to blow all the commenters
infiltratorr 3 months ago
If all Westerns stopped buying stuff from China, that would be bad for their workers. Yes, many are slaves. Humans have been slaughtered and have died in the most horrendous of ways for thousands of years. Capitalism is just a small piece of that history. For example, under Mao Zedong killed 45 million of his own people from 1958-1962. Communism seeks to abolish private property, religion, family, morality, etc. It identifies certain problems, but its solutions are questionable -- at best.
amamerc 3 months ago
@amamerc You're talking about a particular 'immplementation' of communism... in fact what occident came to call the eastern regimes. From a marxist point of view, it would be more proper to call them 'socialists', at best. But it's merely academical. Western capital today, holds together in a very great part, by the cheap labor, and cheap raw materials provided by the state capitalism prevailing in China. Saddly, China came to be the proof of Trotsky's statement that stalinism is
levogiro 3 months ago
@levogiro I'm not sure if I implied Mao was a capitalist. Not much space to type. Rothbard considers him a "super-Stalinist," far worse than "socialist." I realize that capitalism created today's standard of living; there is no doubt about that. However, capitalism is not perfect, although this may largely be due to government, "counterfeit" fiat money, etc. Eg Eurozone is not capitalist, and is bad. Also, every country starts out like China: US used to be a quasi-3rd world nation in 18th cent.
amamerc 3 months ago
@amamerc state capitalism. Today, China's state (note i'm not saying china's government), is the greatest corporation in all the planet, the CCP, the greatest directing board, and china's working class, is the most overexploited worker class in the world. That's where the stalinist thesis of socialism in one country has led china. To be the greatest combinat in the history of the human kind, providing outsource to capital in crisis, everywhere in the world.
levogiro 3 months ago
@amamerc That only will end if and only if China's workers stand on their own and claim what's trully theirs. (And personally, I would love to see many of China's bureaucrats hanging from their balls on public squares... but yes!... I know this is bad! Just among us!! shhhh! xD)
Regards!
levogiro 3 months ago
i knew you are canadian when you said "think "abOUt" it" lol and also cause you are nice and you care
medoelkorsan 3 months ago
you're pretty!
Gumblert 3 months ago
You are right most things we consume are made in 'sweatshops' but i think you have, as Marx did, no basic understanding of how economics actually works.
mbcannan 3 months ago
@mbcannan Prove Karl Marx had no idea how the economy works.
MrScar7X 3 months ago
nice!
"Remember what sufferings you are debtor, while enjoying its fruits ... Go to the textile mills, the mills, the cotton plantations, workers spend decades, his entire life in dusty, sweltering rooms or under the fire of the sun every day doing the same stupid and desperating job, with no prospect of a release, without the possibility of spiritual development ... Put yourself in the situation of these men and think for a moment that you can not live without clothes "
(Max Horkheimer)
phylobyrd 4 months ago
You explained 'Alienation' better than my professor...omg.
jenlee816 4 months ago 2
Horrible accent.
Dan474834 4 months ago
Those people in Asia would be dead now if we actually cared and paid over-prices for cloths made by out friends. Socialism would have killed em.
Transnational corporations pay far higher wages then national corporations in poor countries and the only reason the workers would stay poor is if there government is socialist.
In other places it works fine. Taiwan had sweatshops two generations ago, now the children of those sweatshop workers have a college education and work developing electronics...
EscapingLeviathan 4 months ago
Comment removed
EscapingLeviathan 4 months ago
Great video :)
memyselfandi1691 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Marx was just a plagurist who ripped off the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and re-packaged it.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
please post a video of the sweater you are going to make and all your other homemade clothes......socks,shirts,underwear and shoes,and while your at it......how bout you make your own television !!! your philosophy teacher is a communist !!!
75kamaro 4 months ago
@75kamaro you say that like it's a bad thing
galatisnik5 4 months ago
so, basically, we should kill the chinese, right? I think that's what you're saying...
badger279 4 months ago
@Mushkenu it is true that product, direct and indirect labor costs should be a factor, but it isn't a major factor in determining value. Time preferences, popular trend, and utility all explain how some things are worth more at one time than another time, and they may be worth more at one place than another place.
MrBigEnchilada 4 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada Actually it IS major factor determining the value. English has tow words to explain the difference: Worth and value. Main utility value of a product determine the surplus value of exploitation. But when product came to market its "worth" changes according to other factors. This kind of market rules benefits the capitalist in short terms, so crisis' main reason depends on this. In market product become different thing than its own essence.(contnues)
Mushkenu 4 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada this also explained by Marx in the term of "commodity fetishism". Although there is other factors which determines products worth, it changes nothing on basis of capitalist exploitation of labour. Coz market benefits is not changing the workers' situation a bit. Moreover machinery raises rate of explotation. Also explained by Marx.
Mushkenu 4 months ago
Marxists are just stupid !
TakisAthensGr 4 months ago
& WNDC
what you do is you be prepared while we lobby for increased taxation on companies who hire overseas since we can't do it through Tariffs. Then your competitors will get the same reality check as you.... prices will have to climb to an equilibrium that can support US worker collective bargaining. You as a US investor should be for this as well, because it will punish those competitors who are beating you by using cheaper labor than you. Got it?
ESponge2000 4 months ago
I really was up to study some about Karl Marx, now im having a boner.
ololorfl 4 months ago
your emphasis on alienation is definitely correct, there isolation we have from the products that we buy (like packaged foods) are causing lots of problems. However, Marxian theory of labor value is not correct, his idea that people shouldn't make surplus value is not correct.
On the other hand, I hate people who call names "omfg your a communist" implying that "you must be wrong cuz u think that way".
I prefer people who engage in valuable discussion instead of accusation.
MrBigEnchilada 4 months ago