Saying Marx is responsible for Stalinism is saying Jesus is response for the Spanish Inquisition

@dstinnettmusic

5 жыл бұрын

Illya Lypyak oh oh! Or it’s like saying that Julius Caesar was responsible for World War I by his Gaul Campaign

@SuperSupermanX1999

5 жыл бұрын

In fairness I don't think anyone's saying that Marx is personally responsible. The argument is that the ideals he espoused played a significant role in inspiring Stalinism. I'd argue that that much is true, although the extent is up for debate. The same would be said for Jesus and the Spanish Inquisition; the teachings of Jesus inspired the ideology that enacted the inquisition.

@orion2116

4 жыл бұрын

Illya Lypyak - Amen

@lukecho527

4 жыл бұрын

Plus, many Orthodox Marxists opposed Stalin and Marxist Leninism

@comrademanda6326

4 жыл бұрын

Stalinism doesn't exist dummy

"I'll have to bring it up at the next secret feminist Jewish Illuminati SJW world order meeting" I fucking lost it.

Could you do a series on Anarchist philosophers/philosophy, such as Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc.?

@BreakinBoog

8 жыл бұрын

+sihplak I'd very much like that as well.

@TwentySeventhLetter

8 жыл бұрын

Yesssss pleeeeease

@enjacku

8 жыл бұрын

+sihplak I was just going to ask that :D

@liamwalters9981

8 жыл бұрын

Yes.

@mattbonaccio3522

8 жыл бұрын

+sihplak Yes, we need that! (In fact, I suggested it on one of his Marx videos...)

1:32 Wouldn't Marx say something along the lines that the very structure of capitalism is based on exploitation. It doesn't matter whether you feel happy or not. Pre-Capital Marx would add that if you do, it is because you've bought into bourgeois ideology or you're a part of the bourgeoisie yourself. EDIT: Comments retracted, you've literally touched upon that in the next sentence.

@jessicacerullo3155

8 жыл бұрын

Yes, precisely! I think Marx originally used the term in a neutral tone to mean utilizing workers labor to gain surplus value. But since the term has a negative connotation, people feel it's more of a moral judgment than an observation of the operations of Capitalism.

@AHBarbarossa

8 жыл бұрын

+Jessica Cerullo Well he was quite explicit in his judgement: // It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom-Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. // en.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Communist_Party/1 de.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifest_der_Kommunistischen_Partei_(1848)

At about 3:58 you bring up the atrocities of Marxist societies. You mention the Russian gulags, but a perfect counter argument you could have used is that the USA currently has more people in prison today than Stalin ever did, and that is a direct result of the for-profit prisons that come from an unchecked capitalist system which puts more value on profit than the freedom of its people. So, you are very right.

@AHBarbarossa

8 жыл бұрын

+ToonamiT0M It's not really an unchecked capitalist system which controls the prison system. Who is thrown into a prison is defined by laws. Who is allowed to build prisons is defined by governments. In a uncoerced society punishments would be more focused on eliminating damage done. How is it helpful for me if a thief that steals from me is thrown into a prison? How does it harm anyone if someone sells, buys and consumes marijuana? Why are these people thrown into a prison? It is not the unchecked capitalism that is the problem here, but people using the states power to enforce their agenda. True, in our current system the big corporations are able to wield this power, as they can buy politicians... I'm sorry "do lobbying". But you would still have this problem if there were no rich people: Someone would still be able to wield state power for their own agenda. And there is a good possibility that this someone has not the societies interest in mind.

@chickenfrend

8 жыл бұрын

+August Heinrich Barbarossa The state supports the interests of the capitalists, and it's important to remember you can't have capitalism without it, whatever an-caps say. Besides, the point is just that the US, a capitalist country, does bad things sometimes.

@AHBarbarossa

8 жыл бұрын

+Chickenfrend "The state supports the interests of the capitalists" At least of some, if you are "too big to fail", or if you have strong interest groups. If you want to become a small business owner you are actually hurt by the huge amount regulations, which requires you to have specialists (lawyer / accountant / etc.) to tackle them. This overhead keeps people from entering markets, lowers competition and thus prevents cartels and monopolies from breaking up. - If the monopoly is not outright stated by law and you are not allowed to offer better and cheaper services. - "and it's important to remember you can't have capitalism without it" Please explain, what you do mean by stating "you need a state for capitalism"? I don't think a state is necessary to be able to save resources and either spend them on a good or bigger opportunity later, like a house, gift them, or lend the resources with or without interest (basic capitalism). - "whatever an-caps say" Whatever [group of people you don't agree with] say is not an argument: Make one against the thing I said, not the group you perceive me to belong to. Also, depending on your definition, your categorization might be incorrect. - "Besides, the point is just that the US, a capitalist country, does bad things sometimes." ToonamiT0M made the point that an *unchecked* capitalist system does bad things like for-profit prisons. I agree that a capitalist country does bad things, like every person and every group of people, sometimes intended, sometimes not. I argued against the "*unchecked*" part that A) the US is not an unchecked capitalist system in the context of prison (you need laws to strip human rights away from people) and B) that in an unchecked system there would be not benefit to lock people into a prison for having consumed marijuana. -- Of course you have not to agree with me, but don't just tell me that I'm wrong because you said so.

@chickenfrend

8 жыл бұрын

August Heinrich Barbarossa While something like capitalism may momentarily exist without a state, I would argue that it would either be abolished due to revolt, or a state would be put in place. I say this because capitalist organizations are bound only by profit. That is, they will do things that are profitable, and are not bound by an ethics, or at least those bound by ethics will quickly be out competed. One might say that, because people will not want to buy from or work for an organization that is violent or exploitative, such an organization can not exist. But this is not so, because the employed, who has only his labor to sell, requires the property of the capitalist to survive. Thus this is not an equal relationship, in that the capitalist owns property, importantly the means of production. One with nothing must work for one with something. Further, I would remind you that private property is only as good as ones ability to protect it. Land you claim is yours means nothing if I can claim it as my own. It means something only if you can prevent me from doing so by means of force. With a state, this is supplied by the state, but without a state this would have to be personally provided. Because of this, everyone who wants property will have to either protect it themselves, or pay someone else to protect it. The second situation requires there be someone else with the capability of protecting it. If this is so, there is nothing stopping that organization from seizing what you think is yours, or from forcing you to work for them. These organizations would likely form something similar to company towns. I think one of two things would happen here. Either, the workers who live in the towns would revolt and take control of the town, and abolish capitalism, or the town, which is driven by profit, would realize it could profit greatly by going to war with other towns. This process, I think, would abolish a state, and likely one worse than we have now. None of these organizations would have any reason to follow the non aggression principle.

@AHBarbarossa

8 жыл бұрын

+Chickenfrend "Because of this, everyone who wants property will have to either protect it themselves, or pay someone else to protect it." You are describing a current situation: The police does not help you in protecting your property. True, it might be a deterrent for people thinking about stealing or damaging, but the police work is *after* your own protection failed. -- "None of these organizations would have any reason to follow the non aggression principle." Yes they would, because it is economically more efficient. If you steal something, someone loses and someone wins. If you trade something willingly both parties win: I got something worth more than the coins in my pocket. The shop got coins more worth for them than the thing they sold me. Most people can understand this. - That is why trade existed since we have means to document it. -- "That is, they will do things that are profitable, and are not bound by an ethics, or at least those bound by ethics will quickly be out competed." Why and how? If there there is a majority of good people most people will not work for this company; most people will not buy from this company; most people will not protect the company if the atrocities are brought to light. And if the latter happens even a ruling class protecting this company can not help but support the majority of the population. Is there a majority of good people? Yes. My argument is, that there is a significant majority of good people, because otherwise our democracies would be hellholes of state-legitimized destruction of human lives and environments at a scale seen in a cyberpunk-thriller. -- "It means something only if you can prevent me from doing so by means of force." Really? *You personally* would go around and steal peoples stuff? *If this is your believe*: As you are an corrupted and criminal mind, everything you are are proposing serves probably your own criminal agendas. So you want a strong state, not to benefit the population, but to further your personal interests And you want a worker revolution, not to benefit them, but because you are envious and want to steal things. *If this is NOT your believe*: Are you believing that anyone but you and your close friends is a criminal mind? Are you believing that a majority of people is insane and unable to grasp the benefits of a society? As said above, if this were the case than any democracy would devolve into a plundering war machine and we would have ubiquitous war by majority vote.

Exploitation in Marxism does not have to be a moral category. It's just an economic phenomenon. In fact, the rate of exploitation can be quantified: surplus value / wages.

@ianhruday9584

8 жыл бұрын

+stevalsm You can make this move, but I don't think its desirable. If we treat exploitation as purely an economic concept, we lose the normative force behind that concept. We can never be morally motivated to change out of a capitalist system. At best you have undermined the moral argument (I think Marx made a similar move). At worst you are intentionally equivocating. I think the correct thing to do is to bite the bullet and admit its a moral concept, and then you can embark on a project of normative ethics.

Thanks for acknowledging the US' intervention on Latin American democracies. The damage has been made, though.

@kjronning1

5 жыл бұрын

Damage is being done again.

@finnianquail8881

5 жыл бұрын

@@kjronning1 awww man

@Stinoco

3 жыл бұрын

Are you crazy? The USSR did more damage to Cuba and Nicaragua

@agstinacueva1673

2 жыл бұрын

@@Stinoco lmao ok no one asked

Ten people in a philosophical debate can invoke the term "freedom" and mean ten different things. Hell the history of The United States alone can be summarised as a tug of war between competing definitions of freedom. Sometimes ridiculous, e.g. freedom from slavery vs freedom to own slaves, and some of them a little more wooly, e.g. a right to life vs a right to bodily autonomy.

You were pretty spot-on with your pronounciation of "Gattungswesen" this time :D And as always: Great video!

@hollywilliams2696

8 жыл бұрын

How did you not say something unoriginal?!?

@unvergebeneid

8 жыл бұрын

+InnerPartisan Should have been "veh-zen", not "veh-sen" but other than that, yes, I agree, worlds apart from the last time :)

I must have missed /pol/ coming by, but I'm not surprised they did nor am I sorry that I missed it. :P Happy to help, Olly! Thanks for the great videos!

Three years late to the party, but I recommend some complimentary reading for the first question. Frédéric Lordon's the Willing Slaves of Capital poses a fantasticly strong argument against the notion that people "willingly" enter into a worker-boss relationship. They just pick the roles available to them that are the LEAST unpleasant. But that at the end of the day, even when people are loving their jobs, they would likely rather be doing anything else other than that. Also, for a broader picture on the damaging effect of capitalist labour on the minds of the workers themselves. I would recommend György Lukács' Reification and the Conciousness of the Proletariat from the book history and Class Consciousness. he does a great job of explaining the way in which labour relations under capitalism force people to change the way they interact with eachother.

exploitation is a technical notion, not a moral one where the surplus generated by one class is expropriated by another.

You should do something about Paul Lafarge's critique on the capitalist notion of "the right to work."

@WillTalbot

8 жыл бұрын

rights and freedoms are almost synonymous to Libertarians so tell me, what could possible be wrong with the freedom to work?

@tomikuz1654

8 жыл бұрын

asdfjk; you should have a quick read of Paul Lafarge's "The Right to be Lazy." It is very short, yet insightful and offers a interesting perspective. You can find it easily a pdf and be done with it in like an hour or two. I can explain it, but i don't want give out an erroneous perspective since i am still marinating the concepts described.

@Purpleturtlehurtler

4 жыл бұрын

@@tomikuz1654 reading this comment just made me pull it up on my phone. Gonna read tonight. Thank you.

Stalin is to Marx as Torquemada is to Jesus :-)

@sonofgreatsteppes9497

3 жыл бұрын

Stalin is to Marx as pigeon is to eagle. Both are birds (both are humans) but one of them is proud and wise, and other is just flying rat.

You rock like Rosetta Stone. You rock like a diamond. You rock like Mount Rushmore. You rock like Plymouth. I very much enjoyed the month of Marx. The material was interesting and you presented it well. Thank you!!!

4:53 Marxist Regimes? Come on, Olly, that's kind of like saying Polish Death Camps or calling capitalist countries Lockean or Smithian regimes. They are regimes of power, of course (jk).

@arthurhill8185

8 жыл бұрын

+maggit I mean, in a sort of unuseful pedantic sense, they are both marxist, and regimes, so they're marxist regimes, but it's definitely a misleading term.

I couldn't tell you how much time I clicked to "pause" the video, ended up in another video trought the links and had to go back and found out where I had left. But great video, I really appreciated the Marx series !

do anarchism! bakunin / chomsky / bookchin ect!

@marcocampa94

7 жыл бұрын

Abdullah Ocalan

Man, after watching your video about abusive relationships, and then watching this video, i sense thant your love for your channel, your videos, your art kept you going. Good thing you're in a better position right now. you're great, man!

Am I correct in thinking that Marx views exploitation as basically getting "ripped off"? If (according to Marx) you are always underpaid (relative to the value of goods you produce), then you are getting ripped off and, thus, exploited. It doesn't matter whether you're happy or if you consent to it or not; getting ripped off is still being exploited.

@kikiopeoluwaajayi21

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly. Technically a slave could be ‘happy’ doesn’t change the fact value is being taken away from him

So glad to find this channel--- thank you🙏

@PhilosophyTube

7 жыл бұрын

My pleasure!

I’d love to hear you talk about the worth and value of digitally creative works, like digital paintings, film, visual essays, graphic design, things that are easily copy and pasted but took a lot of work initially to create.

Hi Olly im applying for college soon and stuck between Majoring in Political Science or Philosophy. It seems to me that the only difference is (in the US) that the Poli Sci seems like its just more in depth of how our gov works rather than the actual Politics or Philosophy. How would you say the are similar and how they differ, and what would you recommend?

You can see the red tide replacing capitalism in his mind.

I think one of the key differences is that the greatest atrocities committed by capitalist regimes aren't necessary features of the capitalist system, though they have served to benefit and preserve it. In communist regimes, the atrocities seem to be more of necessary features to preserve the system (violently seizing the means of production, suppression of political dissent through coercion or violence) and they tend to be focused inward on their own citizens. However, what are often referred to as atrocities of the communist system are the famines of Mao and Stalin, which were actually failures of the systems in place, much more akin to the Great Depression, which was a failure of capitalism. The results of systemic failures of both systems are bad, but even during the great depression, things never got nearly as bad as in the Soviet Union, and mass starvation never occurred during the great depression (unless you believe Russia's claims which i haven't fully researched), but tens of millions starved under the communist famines. So both capitalist and communist systems can and probably will lead to atrocities, and both systems can and probably will fail, but from what we see in the historical record, when capitalism fails, it's often less catastrophic than when communism fails, in no small part due to the decentralization of power, productivity, decisionmaking, and distribution in a capitalist system.

Please tell me Olly that this alliteration of philosophers and months will mean that we will see a series of Nietzsche in November or Sartre in September

@maggitPL

8 жыл бұрын

+Jasmin Aliysa Marx March, Adorno April, Mill May, Jünger June (for all you conservatives out there), St. Augustine August, Jaspers July, Sartre September, (William of) Ockham October, Nietzsche November, Deleuze December! Brilliant!

@jasminaliysa111

8 жыл бұрын

And Hume July since he would disagree with our logic here

Thanks for replying Olly! It's always good to hear the other side. I agree with you that freedom without job or money or basic needs isn't really that free (basic income by taxing capitalists, anyone?). Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral. There's of course the discussion about what 'true' freedom really is, and if you take a demanding notion, capitalism probably falls short. So yes, I want to take that. The marxist argument is of course that capitalism is exploitation which isn't freedom. I've studied it, and I'm not persuaded by that further claim. I definitely don't want to suggest capitalism means (much) freedom - an oppressive state is compatible with private property, markets etc. It does allow really well for it, though, and free markets obviously require at least some freedom. What I had in mind is more of an historical argument than philosophical, although I think there's a good philosophical argument to make on the back of it. If you look at all the Marxist/communist political systems we've seen in the whole world (meaning at least the abolition of private property and free markets, like in voluntary exchanges between individuals), there's as far as I know not one communist regime that had basic economic, political and civil liberties as we understand and value them. Oppression everywhere, no freedom of thought, speech, association, religion, etc. Maybe the Marxist can fix this in theory (I doubt it, maybe), but it simply doesn't show up in practice (besides maybe in small communities like Kibbuts, where people crucially have the possibility to opt-out of the process; its voluntary). The problem with Marxism and democracy is 1) that most people in most countries are actually not Marxists and 2) that the people who aren't Marxist, majority or minority, alike will need to be violently coerced into the Marxist/communist society. Basically, communism must violate the rights of the non-Marxists in the society to establish common ownership and abolish free exchange. That MUST be oppressive. This is the more philosophical point. It doesn't respect minority/non-Marxists' rights and liberties. So in the end, Marxism is incompatible with basic economic and civil liberties, while capitalism does allow for it. And I'd say if you actually are in favour of private property and free (regulated) markets, you're already a capitalist (like social democrats).

Someone (or more than one someones) asked for a follow-up video about Hegel and Marx, and I'd also appreciate it... the more I learn about Hegel (and read the parts of Marx that are most touched by German Idealism) the less I understand how anyone thought they understood what he was trying to say. Or if he actually "said" anything. Actually you could just make a video reading Schopenhauer's quotes about Hegel and I'd be okay with it :P

7:55 I believe the technical term for "diluted" is amortization which is the capacity to reduce the cost of something by doing multiple examples of the same product over time. So copying a software and attempt to sell it as a single item would be impossible since you have to pay the whole time the labor spent for one product. If you do a hundred of them, then you can divide the price/developpment time per product by almost a hundred. Long story short, Amortization is the word you are looking for.

Have you considered talking more about William James? You've touched on Pragmatism before, but what do you think about James's "The Will to Believe"? What do you think about James's assumption that it is acceptable to adopt or continue a belief without any evidence of that belief's truth value in some cases?

@ianhruday9584

8 жыл бұрын

+HaydenX And then he should do "The Ethics of Belief" as a companion peace.

Well, also a good fraction of things can be FULLY automated at some point. No workers and the value will rapidly approach zero.

Exploitation has to do more with fairness in my opinion than consent, is it really consent to engage in a system that gives you no other option?? i think a worker ceases to count as exploited when they are recieving fair pay and conditions and aren't under the threat of losing basic rights if they were to choose to leave such work while i personally don't think competition should be removed entirely i think freedom is more important, the competition between providers shouldn't have to equal a dichotomy for the worker of either you work or you die cause poverty, i hope it's not controversial to say that the best ideas are not the ones that a knife against your throat compell you to pop up with, if people's continued livelihood is assured then the stress and ensuing alianation from work they hate will turn into passion and dedication for the activities the individual is emotionally invested in and those result in productivity, if the studies about a state-issued living wage are to be believed, private property doesn't need to disappear either it just has to be more balanced in contrast to public property, what is necessary is public what is optional is private. i don't know how you are so calmly adressing the cultural marxism thing, to me that 's just a zero sum concept

I want you to make a video about whether it's better to have a short but happy life or a long but sad one

I know this isn't an economics channel per se, but I would love fornyou to cover other classical econonists such as Smith or Ricardo.

6:30 lamo nice one

Great video

please do one in Hegel

Can you do a video on political relativism?

great video

Marx’ view on exploitation is more that Capitalists exploit the labour of workers the same way they exploit their machines. It’s not a value judgement, just a statement of fact.

+PhilosophyTube 3:31 On the other hand Marx himself asked for people to be equally forced to labor (Arbeitszwang) in the measures for the most advanced countries in the communist manifesto. This will probably include tasks which you don't actually want to do (otherwise nobody has to force you to do it). Also, I would argue that more liberal and free societies increase the pressure to work, as you can't force people to pay (taxes) for you, if you don't like your job (voluntary unemployment). If you argue (or if you represent the Marxist's position) that this is not really freedom: I can see you point. But what is the alternative? Force other people to something they don't want to do freely (like charity, or free training programs for jobs more suitable)? -- 8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 8) Gleicher *Arbeitszwang* für Alle, Errichtung industrieller Armeen besonders für den Ackerbau. en.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Communist_Party/2 de.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifest_der_Kommunistischen_Partei_(1848)

Great responses! (From a Marxist)

Thanks for mentioning patreon, I've been meaning to support youtube channels now that I have some ill gotten capitalist gains.

It'd be very interesting if you made a video talking about whether the Chinese one-child policy is morally correct or not

Do you think it's good to mention the names of your donators?

I'm wondering how you justify the terms "True Value" or "True Freedom"? True to whom? a value to Whom?

@rolandxb3581

8 жыл бұрын

+Louis Cyfear It's an idealised notion of what freedom should be, or what we would like it to be. (Being able to choose a job you really like, for example - thats a good thing to be free in, right?). Here you really get into a discussion about what freedom precisely means, and a demanding conception of freedom cannot be guaranteed in most capitalist societies - because it is unaffordable for the community.

@louiscyfear878

8 жыл бұрын

*_"True Freedom"_* doesn't exist anywhere on this planet. You have an inescapable responsibility to sustain your own existence & you're never free from the consequences of your actions. What happens when 51% of a voting block demands the "Right" to never work again? Or that they have a "Right" to beachfront property? Who's going to provide them with their "True Value"?

@marcocampa94

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe you've to read more Marx and Engels and less contractualists: "For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." - Die Deutsche Ideologie/The German Ideology, K. Marx (1846) "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Kritik des Gothaer Programms/Critique of the Gotha Program, K. Marx (1875)

@louiscyfear878

7 жыл бұрын

marcocampa94 .. *_"For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape."_* Citation needed!!! You're obviously conflating rhetoric with provable scientific facts. History is no friend of Marxism & neither am I.

@marcocampa94

7 жыл бұрын

Louis Cyfear So, roman and greek idea about slavery and freedom did not exist? As for the the Middle Age with peasents tied to valvassor/king land? As Guilds and Arts? As the concept of fordism and toyotism per se?

Well,this mouth of Marx was quite the ride! By my profit picture you can fairly guess you got me hooked on day one... Well,anyway. Just stoped by to comment...

Olly, how old are you?

@PhilosophyTube

8 жыл бұрын

+nfsking2000 I'm about to turn 23

@nfsking2000

8 жыл бұрын

+Philosophy Tube Ok Thanks.

@abdirahmanmoussa351

8 жыл бұрын

+Philosophy Tube wow i just turned 23 today!!! greetings from Morrocco your loyal philosophifan

666k subs! the devil is in the details I suppose xD

i demand more information on socialism! and anarchy while you’re at it. :p

You seemed to downplay too much the labor in information technology. Oftentimes top tier games cost millions to billions of dollars (doesnt directly translate to labor hours, but close enough) and then yes the value is diluted but if it costs 100 million to make and you sell 1 million copies it is still worth 100 dollars each copy. Even if the currency directly correlated to labor hours that fact would remain. And sure they could just make another million copies of their software but they have already sold to all the people with use for it and will soon be outdated so they need to start producing the next one. The labor cost for information technology is not diluted to negligibility all the time, or even most of the time.

See you at the meeting! Don't forget to bring something for the potluck.

I think that even if you're happy you're still being exploited, because regardless of your level of happiness or unhappiness, you're exploited fairly evenly. Lets say you come in one day, and you're as happy as can be. The day ends and you're still elated, well you were exploited to the same extent and with the same depth (assuming everything remains constant from day to day at your job) as you'd be if you came in unhappy. This also stems from the nature of exploitation and the cold-heartedness (per say) of the capitalist system. Being exploited has nothing to do with your level of happiness, Bernie Madoff tricked a ton of people into giving him money and they sure as hell were exploited regardless of their level of happiness towards anything. Capitalism also doesn't care if you're happy or unhappy, it's gonna keep exploiting you based on the way your job is set up no matter if you're on cloud 9 or in the 9th ring of hell.

wait, so someone is a marxist, if he/she says, that it shouldnt be allowed, to use crude measures to ensure ones profits?? Isn't that a basic notion in nearly every capitalistic theory since the great depression? I mean for real...

@iananderson12796

8 жыл бұрын

I would recommend taking a closer look at modern industries. They do many bad things to ensure profit.

@MrPhiltri

8 жыл бұрын

Ian Anderson Yeah, but thats like argueing, that Berliners are criminals because there is more crime in Berlin. What I want to say is, that denouncing fraud and unfair behaviour is not at all marxistic...its actually pretty capitalistic with the exeption of laissez faire capitalism.

@iananderson12796

8 жыл бұрын

+MrPhiltri the Marxist position would be that the institution of Capitalism allows one party to benefit from the suffering of another and that is itself immoral probably. I didn't hang with Karl so I'm not certain.

@MrPhiltri

8 жыл бұрын

Ian Anderson true, but thats a very easy argument against the basic notion of selling working power, which is of course inherit to capitalism. And it is founded in Marxs idea of value, which is highly contested for good reasons...

8:17 it must've been George Soros. Come on, there's no way I'm leaving out the opportunity to make this comment.

I oppose capitalism because it fucks free expression badly, with econimic inequality and stuff. It's a really major thing.

Democracy doesn't mean freedom, geez...

You should do the philosophy of Islam because that would be interesting subject. I Find that theirs alot of stuff people don't understand about Islam and it's prophet muhammad. If you do decide to tacwkle philosophy of Islam You should bring your fireProof underwear. because no matter where you Stand or how obective you are on the philosophy of Islam theirs bound to be a Flame war.

Yow!

is it exploitative to offer a starving person food in exchange for sex, if they want to have sex with me anyway?

@andrewd2534

3 жыл бұрын

Why would you give them any food in exchange anyway than

@robmckennie4203

3 жыл бұрын

@@andrewd2534 well I'm not sure exactly what I was thinking about a year ago, but potentially they're withholding sex because they want food? I'll admit it's a bit of a dumb question, maybe what I was trying to get at was the exact nature of exploitation, but I'm not sure.

That last part. "I liked the Marxist series as it allowed me to make gains in patreon, a site that allows you to 'purchase' consumer goods (rewards)" I love that

@PhilosophyTube

8 жыл бұрын

+Smelly Squid That's very much not how I see Patreon, I see it as a way for fans to show support and get very nominal rewards, and a few patrons have actually turned down rewards in the past, but you could look at it that way I guess

The only time I get first and I say the most unoriginal thing ever.... Dang it!

@patriongodoffinancialgainf6301

8 жыл бұрын

Well,since I'm here as well let me join your Un-original commenting thingy. hi... Second!!

@hollywilliams2696

8 жыл бұрын

+Tr lawi0 Haha thanks for joining the club of unoriginality!

@patriongodoffinancialgainf6301

8 жыл бұрын

+Spaghetti Lemonād Anytime mate!

The reason that capitalist societies aren't directly tied to their atrocities is because those individual states have so much history between them and so much variation in foreign policy practices that you can't attribute it to a single ideology. More often than not, atrocities such as Phnom Peng are attributed to individual ambition and not as a sole result of capitalism. It's more accurate to say that states such as the US use capitalism as a tool, but they do not use it as an ideological basis for how the world should be run. If you look across all the ways in which they have worked with the CIA to destabilize nations, their objective is to secure close links and deals with said nations, not to instill the ideology of capitalism, as they have worked with incredibly right wing and left wing governments before; what they care about is isolationism, not ideology, otherwise they wouldn't have sponsored PRC or the Muslim Brotherhood at the same time, when they couldn't be more ideologically opposed to one another. Attributing it to capitalism only was part of Soviet propoganda, and if we want to discuss crimes committed in the name of the free market, then the types of crimes vary significantly. Communism is to do with conformity therefore you get mass crimes, like Gulags and executions, whereas Capitalism is to do with competition and maximising capital, so you get the BP oil spill and the 2008 Housing Crisis. Applying events such as the Gulf Wars solely to the banner of capitalism is missing the forest for the trees, since they have more to do with the operation of the governments that participated in said wars than their devotion to an ideology.

People pretty much think I'm boring I never get replyed

@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat

5 жыл бұрын

Here's a reply

Is he a Marxist?

So, if having to potentially work a job you don't like makes you not free under capitalism, how would it not be the same under Marx's model? There's always the possibility that you could want to produce some product that there is no demand for, forcing you to take another job to contribute labor to the economy. As long as the cost of goods is nonzero, even under non-capitalistic models there is an imperative to take part in economic activity. Also, I would say that while the initial cost of developing software is distributed among copies, the cost of support actually grows. The more users you have of any given piece of software, the more manpower it will take to assist people using it since we haven't reached that glorious stage of society where everyone is a software engineer. Additionally, as software picks up in use there are infrastructure and distribution considerations. Especially as we move to cloud applications, more and more network/storage resources have to be acquired by the software manufacturer in order to make the software available and functional. It seems like the flaw in this argument about information isn't that his appraisal of production cost is wrong, but rather a failure to note the changes that come with entering a service economy.

FIRSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTT FINALLY thanks for a good video llamas and unicornsyayyyyyyy

@PhilosophyTube

8 жыл бұрын

+Spaghetti Lemonād Haha, no worries

Cultural Marxism comments yikes.

You still don’t understand cultural Marxism. You straw man the use of the phrase by only addressing the misinformed uses of it. According to how many people use the phrase, cultural Marxism refers to the Frankfurt School’s methodology of focusing on culture in order to reveal the full extent and nature of bourgeois hegemony. In other words, it is synonymous with neo-Marxism. This relatively heavy analysis of culture distinguishes cultural Marxism from classical Marxism. And, no, I am not from 4-Chan. Don’t be so snide and dismissive. Arrogance combined with ignorance is so cringeworthy.

I would argue that Marxists say people want social freedoms, whereas capitalists say people want economic freedoms.

@chickenfrend

8 жыл бұрын

+MikeDrumsIt By economic freedom, do you mean that the capitalist class should have the freedom to exploit and repress the working class? Cause I guess that's what capitalists want.

Today Marxists seem to separate theoretical Marxism with practical Marxism. Theoretical Marxism has good intentions but all attempts to realise a Marxist utopia have resulted in failure and even evil; Marxists claim these examples are pollutes of Marxism, but they have to be accounted for when describing theoretical Marxism. So far history has proven 'mutilated' Marxism to be the natural progression of Marxism. ie you can't say Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao, or Casto, weren't true Marxists/Communists, and if you do, that ex facto proves that Marxism has no realist principles if no one who tries to implement Marxism can be a Marxist.

@harrysmith1700

5 жыл бұрын

Well said.

Stalin didn't intentionally cause famines (collectivization ended them in the 30s), and Nazis were sent to Gulags so I think it's time to move past the "Stalin was as bad as Hitler" concept which is mainly propagated by modern day Nazis. (I loved your series, by the way- I just take issue with that particular claim)

@rolandxb3581

8 жыл бұрын

+Mason Bliss More genocide denail! Everyone who opposed Stalin must've been a nazi! The man is just misunderstood. His tens of millions of victims? Well, he he was well-meaning, it just had some unfortunate results. Oh my dear, how old are you? Grow up and get out of this lunacy. Soviet communism was an evil regime that committed mass murder. It was ruthless oppression. Even Marxists were forced to admit this. Seriously, there's nothing as obvious or some people on the internet are outrageous enough to deny it. Denying and condoning the crimes of one of the worst mass murderer's of all time is your free speech, but don't for a second think it has any legitimacy at all.

@nordfreiheit

8 жыл бұрын

Roland xB What tens of millions of victims? Look at the data. Collectivization ended famines in Ukraine. Most deaths attributed to Stalin happened while the Nazis were invading halfway through Russia and completely destroyed the countryside. The rest really were captured Nazis, reactionary landowners that waged a violent resistance against collectivization, and (believe it or not) criminals like rapists and murderers. Soviet communism was not an evil regime. I'm sorry that your education lied to you. Marxists who deny the incredible transformative power of Marxism-Leninism are erasing a whole century of triumph, struggle, and lessons learned as pertains to the realization and implementation of socialism.

@rolandxb3581

8 жыл бұрын

You talk like an idiot, the one who is truly brainwashed. Do you really think the fringe conspiracy propaganda internet websites you got this from are more reliable and trustworthy than everything else? You're just affirming your prejudices and ideological bias. Read The Gulag Archipelago if you think it's really innocent. Your claims are ridiculous. The Soviet regime was extremely repressive and you are actually defending that. End justifies the means? Anyone who isnt a communist is a nazi? Kill everyone who disagrees without due process? Abolish all civil liberties? Again, it's idiotic, completely ridiculous. I would like to believe you're just a troll but I'm afraid you really believe these things.

@nordfreiheit

8 жыл бұрын

Roland xB None of those statements I have made. History requires an analysis of different perspectives because there is implicit bias. The key is to examine each claim and observe the empirical and circumstantial evidence behind it. I don't look at conspiracy websites, I read books, and I critically examine information that is presented to me. We know a lot of people died in famines in the 1930s, but we assume Stalin was in some way responsible (ignoring how famines were naturally occurring and ended after collectivization). People who just assume that Stalin engineered it really aren't using any nuance- you're just repeating what you learned in grade school. We know for a fact that famines ended after the last one which is commonly known as the "Holodomor." The term and tragedy was really just an attempt to place the Soviets on the same level as the Nazis in an attempt by the US to maintain global dominance- hence the Cold War. We know that the US exhausted every effort to stop the spread of communism (if you don't know this, read more), and we know that the US has been known to lie about things to justify military intervention. Using this information, we can examine what we are uncertain about and reach a reasonable conclusion. As far as Stalin being repressive, there is no proof of that. It depends on what you define as repressive and what you define as freedom. I believe Stalin was resisting imperialism and capitalism. Sending wealthy landowners to Gulags, in addition to Nazi sympathizers (as well as Nazi POWs) and common criminals may be a controversial way to enforce the law, but you have to make that argument, not just make blanket unnuanced assumptions. I believe for the most part, they did the right thing. It's interesting that you say "abolish all civil liberties," but I fail to see when this was the case. If you define property ownership as a civil liberty, then you could make that argument- but I disagree with that definition, and there must our argument lie. Keep in mind that someone named Yezhov, who was in charge of the NKVD, did abuse his power and did unfairly send the wrong people to gulags. For this crime, he was executed.

@rolandxb3581

8 жыл бұрын

We know Stalin was paranoid and wiped everyone out he thought was a threat, that he wiped out most of his capable army commanders before the Second World War for example. But you will of course insist those were indeed dangerous, because hey, why would Stalin kill them if they werent? lol. There's a vast literature from people who have suffered under his rule and the consequent party leaders. To say there's no proof is to deny history. Its really become fashionable to blame everything on the US, even though they had NO influence whatsoever in Ukraine or other parts of Eastern Europe, they didn't even care about it until after WO2, when Stalin was already ruling for decades. Yes, fortunately they did everything they could to stop communism, and they won. The free world was victorious. The Ukraine tragedy had nothing to do with the US. Stalin forced the (resisting) farmers to export crops while the country was starving. He didn't give a shit people were dying. Your explanation is just a conspiracy theory. But of course you will deny the facts again. Now it's not just propery rights. Its freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, political freedom and even freedom where to live or what job you wanted. This was IMMORAL and you are defending it. You cannot deny this: these freedoms didnt exist in the USSR. For example, I know very well how Christians were persecuted, thrown into jail for their beliefs, tortured and sent to the Gulag. Political dissidents were brutally disposed of. If you deny these facts, you're just a willfully blind lunatic. The basic fact was that what people themselves wanted or cared about was irrelevant for the communists. The communist programme had to be carried out and everyone who resisted was a filthy capitalist and deserved to get crushed. The secret police was everywhere, no objective trails, no due process. But you will deny all those facts if they dont suit your narrative. It's frankly disgusting. And the things you do admit and support show you are a real totalitarian, just like the nazi's were. Don't like that? It's true.

It is very surprising how the videos on this channel can jump from wonderful and informative like the series on Marx, to terrible propaganda and back.

Let's break the discourse! Stalin was democratically elected. Gulags were wrong, however. No one had realized that yet, though. (Also, the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is pseudo-historical and should not be taken seriously.)

LoL - feminism and SJWs finally familied with belief in Illuminati and Jewish conspiracy. :p

What an incredible dilettante Oliver Thorn is! Divorced-from-reality theorists like this fellow become truly dangerous if they gain positions for exercising political power. Typically people who are ensconced in a make-believe theoretical world do not adequately consider the practical implementation of theories. Guys like Mr. Thorn, or the theorists he may inspire, may cause disasters and much misery should they ever get power.