We're Back in Marx's Story | Aaron Bastani meets David Harvey
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2024
- Last September Aaron Bastani sat down with the world's leading expert on Karl Marx; David Harvey. They discussed the relevance of Marx today, productivity, China and so much more. Enjoy.
---
support.novaramedia.com
The UK is facing an economic crisis, falling living standards, a climate crisis, the rise of the far-right. More than ever, we need a resilient Left. This means we need a strong Left media, capable of thinking honestly about the issues facing us, tackling these issues head-on, as well as reaching out to those who aren’t yet on side. Our wide range of output - from listicles to essays, from punchy videos to in-depth discussions - does exactly that.
But all this costs money: studio rent, equipment, contributor fees and digital infrastructure. We do a lot with a little, but we can’t do anything with nothing. We won’t charge for content or cash in on sponsorship deals with Pepsi. We don’t have private fortunes, or state backers, or big capital behind us - we just have you.
Not everyone can afford to give - but if you enjoy our work, and you believe in what we’re doing, maybe you could forego a couple of your preferred beverages this month and lend us a hand instead. In the longer term, growing our regular subscriber base will allow us to meet the future well-prepared - so if you can spare a few quid a month, why not sign up for a regular subscription?
We’ve achieved so much already - but the truth is, we’ve barely begun. Be a part of the change. Help us build a new media for a different politics.
Why aren't there more people in the world like David Harvey, we need more people like David Harvey and we need them to be heard. Thanks for putting this up Novara Media.
Anne, there are many and they can be read about on the marxist internet archive
www.marxists.org/archive/selected-marxists.htm
and this is just a drop in the ocean
@@Left_it marxists is a scam, to make polliticans richer paying more taxes
@@coopsnz1 this whole sentence doesn't make sense wtf
@@Left_it happens in Australia 30 yrs and union leaders getting richer ,some in jail
@@coopsnz1 yeah and the bankers not in jail (who said union leaders are totally part of Marxism anyway? Under capitalism they are often corrupted )
I hope these can become regular, it’s so helpful to think of the bigger picture when we’re so bombarded with the daily news cycle of anti Labour/Corbyn stories... good to remember the global context of things. I think I could listen to David Harvey for 10 hours
then you could probably listen to richard wolff for a month. start with 'socialism for dummies' or the original 1hr 30mins-ish 'capitalism hits the fan' from 09 i think.
hey dude your desire is accelerating this producing speed
When the interviewer knows the subject, you get an interesting discussion like this. Good stuff.
I’ve been a fan of Harveys for years, I think it’s the way he breaks down what can sometimes be complicated political theories and make them simpler.
Splendid interview! Many thanks Bastani.
Thanks, David Harvey sir,
13 to do this by Sphiwe Molekwa and you can easily be the first one day considere
This channel is amazing!! Keep up the great work
Thank You Aaron and David!
What Aaron says at ~10:50 I so feel that: I wish I had read Capital much earlier (heh, well, still slogging through it).
Excellent interview, thanks for posting! I've been listening to David Harvey more and more and have gone through half his online class on Capital so far but this is the first time I have seen him in dialogue. Historically I've been more aligned with Robert Reich's way of thinking (i.e. let's fix capitalism so it works as part of a tripod for the economy with government and organized labor)....but Harvey is making a powerful case to go further than that, I must say.
Fabulous interview. You asked all the questions I was hoping would be asked.
This is a brilliant dialogue worth the watch
loving the red shirt!
This was a great talk. Thank you for making this available
One of the most stimulating and educational discussions about economics I've seen on the net over years. Ashamed to admit I haven't even read Marx's 'Capital' yet, much less David Harvey's latest. But now very interested, and interested in bringing my somewhat evolutionary--neuro-biological take on the ideas ... examples being the implications of 'Dunbar's Number, Dark Triad Personality types, morality for A.I., and so on.
a very productive conversation!
That was amazing
Fantastic interview.
Outstanding discussion!
David Harvey is such a phenomenal teacher of political economy but my god I wish people like this would read some Lenin, Luxembourg etc
Very interesting analysis of max work Mr Harvey articulates and elaborates on capitalism in very simplistic terms.
Available on podcast?
Bastani was the right person for the job and it's clear Harvey is a personal hero of his which is a joy to watch
Very good questions
Fantastic
Aaron with old people is best kind of Aaron
Aaron Bastani - suggest you read David Deutsch, Beginning of Infinity. You will find many explanations of the basic precepts for modern day conjectures about economy ...
Resource based economy.
For me he’s right, there is a sense coming from the base that things aren’t working and need to be restructured... that’s a lived experience. The intellectuals, certainly Paul Mason, spread confusion by dredging volumes of past works with all those labels and tags. Harvey seems very clear in his thoughts.
I have a few questions. First of all, how do you 'overcome' alienation without transcending the capitalist mode of production? Fortunately, I'm a student (for now) and don't have to worry about selling my labour on a market that doesn't contribute towards my species being/ flourishing as an individual. However, I have many friends that didn't go to university and/or wind up in a job that they genuinely don't enjoy. How can I provide them with advice that gives them optimism for the future and helps to give them a sense of purpose in the world outside of work and/or romantic relationships? Secondly, despite being a completely different line of questions, I would really like to engage in some literature or videos surrounding sexism/ racism/ transphobia/ homophobia etc. that can give me some sound reasoning behind the whole historical/ political development of these struggles. Can anyone point me in a direction, please!
P.S Incredible video, as always. Novara Media is a fantastic source of knowledge for society as a whole! PLEASE continue making these superb videos with incredible intellectuals/ activists. MUCH appreciated!
Cheeky now...Harvey, for all his knowledge about Marx, does not problematize alienation. We cannot talk about it lightly. I would say alienation is the essence of our species-being
You can start with the resources on my channel Bro. Plenty of good stuff for people like you who want to learn
You could start by watching some of David Harvey’s lectures on Marx’s Kapital volume 1. Would also recommend a novel called The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists. Helps you understand oppression of working class under capitalism
Give up the illusion that you are entitled to happiness, purpose of life and good life.
Aaron, I've just discovered your videos and really enjoy your interviews and would love to be involved in something like this. At c.1:17:00 in the video you and David make some interesting points and I actually wrote a paper when I was studying for my Masters at the University of Amsterdam a few years ago on this topic. The paper is called "The Irony of Revolution" and I wonder if you'd want to read it? I can link you to my drive. I've actually written a number of political economy and philosophy papers on the key issues of our time including my Masters thesis on the financialisation of housing that I think (if I can see so myself) is a critical exploration of the issue and should aid anyone who wants to build more houses and re-embed housing into social relations; as Harvey says,reclaim it for it's use value, rather than exchange value.
David Harvey is one of the academics I admire and when studying Karl Marx at University under Werner Bonefeld (an amazing Professor), his companion to capital and spaces of capitalism were so useful in aiding my understanding so it's great you had him on here and asked really good questions. I agree with him, everyone should read Marx. The modern misunderstanding of what he actually writes and the misappropriation of his ideas is quite frustrating, so reading him with Harvey would help, and then moving on to Critical Theory aids us even more in our era of information.
I would be interested in reading your work
Compelling talk and the idea of technology as rent extraction is rather interesting.
Really fascinating take: the intelligencia follows activity of the society rather than leading. Also, the notion that we must complete the work of socialism, that all makes for the agitation that capital exploits to the detriment of socialist progress.
What do you think about Nesara national economic security reinforcement act from back during farm aid!!
Gold.
recommended books connecting marxism and the environment?
Does David Harvey own anything but red shirts?
Looks like he's got his 49ers uniform on... .
Does it matter?
I like how watching good content makes you expand its ideas in a wider context.
The immigration the great unwashed gammon consuming classes the likes of Farage got worked up in to lather, was actually down to capitalism:
Workers no longer had time to raise children, as a politically manufactured housing shortage meant it took two wages to support a household & materialistic consumerism had a stronger claim on their wages. Capitalists would have been forced through supply & demand to pay more if they hadn't been able to avail themselves of cheap labour from behind the defunct iron curtain.
Harvey is consistent on all the points. Good for Aaron to have gone through basics of Marxism - might be useful for his slightly more sceptical view on post modernistic liberalism and dazzling stories of zero marginal cost and similar kinds of "miracles".
Bastani is an excellent interviewer
"E. Coli is a free gift of nature." My new favorite out of context quote.
What is the difference between use value and exchange value of goods. Use value is created predominantly during the production process. The exchange value is created predominantly on the market. Use value of the goods is what you can utilize the goods for when you have them. The exchange value is what you give away in order to have the goods. In the capitalist economy, the MAIN GOAL is to make the exchange value of the goods (with the same usefulness) higher in order to make more profit - you make the goods more expensive. In the socialist economy, the MAIN GOAL is to increase the use value of the goods by making them (for the same price) more useful - worth of having them.
42:37. screen it.
If use value has no measure, then how people exchange…
Read capital
Some say that we are mortgaging our children’s future to carry on consuming ! I agree that what happens in China is crucial.
what is the value of gold?
Marx would say its labour value which resides in its physically inert nature. It takes ever more labour to find it & dig it the ground so if you have some people will readily exchange what you want for it.
So, what we need to do is to emancipate ourselves from the wage system and establish common ownership and democratic control of the collective product of our labour so that we can produce goods and services for use and distribute them on the basis of need.
As for knowledge, it has become owned as it is a product of labour embodied within e.g. a book. The editing of genes involves labour time. How much socially necessary labour time is embodied in creating a robot for sale with a view to profit. As long as the good or service is found useful, it can be commodified thus, sold.
As for value, it is still there, it's just the price is not conforming to it and that is why bubbles occur and burst and markets fall. What happened when the dollar was pegged to gold was that the value of gold (the socially necessary labour time embodied in the ounce of gold) was greater than its price in dollars. When the Saudis called the bluff and demanded to be paid in gold, Nixon closed the gold window and the floated the dollar in the market and bang--it took many more dollars to buy an ounce of gold than when the dollar was pegged to the absurd price of $36 to an ounce of gold. Value is always operating. To ignore the law of value is in a capitalist system is to invite bubbles, crises and crashes.
The socialism Marx and Engels wrote about would not be brought about by electing socialists to govern the political State under the wage system. Instead, it would come about because workers moved as a class to emancipate themselves from the bondage inherent in the wage system.
Socialism would be a different mode of producing and distributing wealth. Use-values would no longer saddled with their exchange-value in order to be sold in the market for a price fluctuating with supply and demand around said exchange-value (the socially necessary labour time embodied in goods and services). Instead, use-values would be distributed on the basis of labour time put into creating the social store of goods and services. The medium of exchange would no longer be a commodity--it could not be traded for a price on the market, socially necessary labour time would have no price, it would no longer embody the alienated wealth of the producers. Why? Because the producers would socially own and democratically manage the collective product of their labour.
De Leon, as well as Marx, did propose a system of labour time vouchers as a way of distributing the use-values within the socialist mode of production:
www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf
I think it's perfectly appropriate to have a plan ready for implementing a new mode of production, one beyond the wage system. Socially necessary labour time vouchers make the relation between humans producing useful goods and services to fulfill their needs transparent. The wage system and commodity sale do not. How many hours of labour are in that ale or automobile or library service?
see: thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/sovietplanningltc_seongjin_urpe20180928.pdf
On the question of value, there is value, as in appreciation and value as in the exchange-value of a commodity. Appreciation is a use-value, as use-value is in the mind of the human being. Apples and oranges are use-values. They can also be commodified and sold. The commodified use-value contains a common substance--socially necessary labour time. What gets confusing is when price is added to the commodity. Price fluctuates with supply and demand around value. Labour supplies the commodity, and if it is supplied in a quantity which exceeds labour's demand for same, the price sinks. The opposite is true too. Not many paintings by the one and only Vincent Willem van Gogh. Lots of demand to privately own them though. Value is the same as other paintings which contain as much labour time, but the price of those may not be as high because of less demand. Thus, the commodity has both exchange-value and use-value. And thus, in a socialist society, as it first emerges from the womb of Capital, may require a certain certainty that others are contributing to the socially necessary labour time which is embodied in the social store of goods and services--to guard against what is commonly known as 'the free-rider syndrome'. I think that a quite likely possibility, at least Marx and Engels convinced me of it through my readings of their intent, starting with my close reading of Critique of the Gotha Program.
"Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences. To understand the first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty. That which concerns more especially the analysis of the substance of value and the magnitude of value, I have, as much as it was possible, popularised. [1] The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form, is very elementary and simple. Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all, whilst on the other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation. Why? Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than are the cells of that body. In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of abstraction must replace both. But in bourgeois society, the commodity-form of the product of labour - or value-form of the commodity - is the economic cell-form. To the superficial observer, the analysis of these forms seems to turn upon minutiae. It does in fact deal with minutiae, but they are of the same order as those dealt with in microscopic anatomy.
With the exception of the section on value-form, therefore, this volume cannot stand accused on the score of difficulty. I presuppose, of course, a reader who is willing to learn something new and therefore to think for himself.
The physicist either observes physical phenomena where they occur in their most typical form and most free from disturbing influence, or, wherever possible, he makes experiments under conditions that assure the occurrence of the phenomenon in its normality. In this work I have to examine the capitalist mode of production, and the conditions of production and exchange corresponding to that mode. Up to the present time, their classic ground is England. That is the reason why England is used as the chief illustration in the development of my theoretical ideas. If, however, the German reader shrugs his shoulders at the condition of the English industrial and agricultural labourers, or in optimist fashion comforts himself with the thought that in Germany things are not nearly so bad; I must plainly tell him, “De te fabula narratur!” [It is of you that the story is told. - Horace]"
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm
On the other hand, if we are all on the same page when we establish common ownership of our wealth, we may just decide to voluntarily put our time into creating the social store of wealth and withdraw from it on the basis of our need just because we want to. I'm certainly on board with that proposition. As the SPGB currently suggests, workers would have a mindset ready to distribute the collective product of labour on the basis of need if they established social ownership and democratic control of the collective product of their labour and had done so at the behest of the SPGB : producers would just put in the labour time necessary to fill the social store of goods and services with no fear that some able bodied people would do nothing to contribute their time and effort. If that happened, I would have no objection.
The point of changing the mode of production or socialism would be to free ourselves from the bondage and mystifications inherent in commodity production and sale via the wage system. Socialists began to lose that vision about the time Engels died and Bernstein became a leading light in the socialist movement. Lenin, only made matters worse.
“Socialism could only be the work of free creation by the workers. While that which was being constructed by coercion, and given the name of socialism, was for them nothing but bureaucratic State capitalism from the very beginning.” - Ante Ciliga, 1938
czcams.com/video/utmWYLdZve4/video.html&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR2e1FYpYLCeW7uDutk2ypD-cUcJqPZT2iQCVsi4vhbUPKki97cmNi0dN94
Alienation exactly what going on today
That is quite a strange definition of socialism. The elimination of exchange value and a shift to exchange only based on use value seems like it's an inherent part of communism (as a marketless form of society), but some forms of socialism do include market exchange. The defining feature of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production (and therefore the elimination of the economic class divide between capital and labor). That's the standard definition accepted by most socialists, and I don't think it necessarily guarantees the end of exchange values, but even if it did, it would be a secondary consequence, not its defining characteristic.
I don't think Harvey is suggesting it's the primary characteristic of socialism, just highlighting and expanding upon Marx's ideas of use&exchange values.
Matthew Fodell Please tell me more about this socialist exchange value😂. In the transition to socialism, goods will be sold for their use value e.g. through labour vouchers, but once we move towards a socialist mode of production value will be eliminated altogether.
Matthew Fodell To put it another way, through workers owning the means of production, they now own the entire product of their own labour. Therefore, no more surplus value extraction. However this is the function of exchange value: it leads to profit, and the point of profit is to extract a surplus from the worker.
Exchange value is incomparable with socialism. Don’t take it from me though, take it from the professor who has been studying capital for 40 years!
It's from Das Capital Marx's critique of capitalism, this is used to inform variations of potential systems such as communism and socialism.
The defining feature of communism is the ownership of the means of production by the workers. Socialism doesn't believe that. Socialism respects private ownership but retains the right to intervene through the state where market failure undermines the general good. Therefore, state-owned enterprises exist alongside capitalist enterprises in sectors where capital is unable or unwilling to perform optimally to benefit society. Socialism tinkers with capitalism; communism wrecks it.
What about this gem by Marxy “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”
Techno primitivism meets techno-futurism. Actually what does DH think of FALC?
We're all talking in the extremes... how about we start with what the Scandinavian societies that have anestablished and has been working beautifully. I don't want to end capitalism and i don't want to be a socialist... yet! If we make it to star trek technology, i'll reconsider.
Retire equally poor , some seniors living on the streets in Norway
Even if the social democracies manage to stave off problems better than others, they are still wrought of and not immune to the contradictions of capitalism
"This is not who we are as Americans"...Yes it is.
Rather odd conceptions of Capitalism here, both sides. I didn't hear much about class and power.
Perhaps I'm just out of touch.
It was nice to hear Tofler's name dropped. Haven't thought about him in years.
Instalike
Viva la F. A. I. 😎
First
Just a small observation… it’s rude to point the soles of your shoes at your guest….
What difference does all this talk actually make?
Now apply this to work, family conflicts
If everything is sped up and capitalism needs to expand, how come that capitalism is growing slower than ever?
I really do value the marxian analysis when it comes to explaining class and Marx has first discovered things like the overproduction crisis, but I think a lot of marxist slogans and lamenting about capitalism need to be rethought. For example, the problem is precisely not that productivity grows to fast but that it doesn't grow fast enough - but because those at the top want more and more money, everyone else has to work harder. The feeling that everything is going faster has nothing to do with the expansion of capital, but with the lack of it. Also, the causes for expansion of capital or the lack of its expansion are in my opinion horribly misread by many marxists (at times because they uncritically use neoclassical 'theorems' and just spin them differently rather than actually questioning them [or if the conditions so you can apply the theorem are acutally fulfilled] - which often makes marxists suggest that capitalism just cannot behave differently from how it does, but since marxists rarely really specify what they want, nobody can tell if these 'theorems' would then also apply to 'socialism' or not).
Please, anyone who takes the problems of capitalism seriously and wants to change something, make sure you do not only look to marxism (which you should! The work of, e.g., Richard Wolff is just great), but also to postkeynesianism (e.g. Mark Blyth or for anyone who undestands German Heiner Flassbeck) to get the macro-picture right (or at least less wrong).
And honestly: I can't stand how marxists use centrist talking points when it comes to debt. The idea that the credit card kept the economy running in a time when wages didn't go up is nuts, people couldn't even make enough debt to make a real impact. If you look at the balances of private households, then you will find that even in the USA private households most of the time net saved money (where most of the time means that there were a couple of years every now and then when that wasn't the case, but that's not significant). What actually kept the economy running was public debt (or in the case of some European and Asian countries countries: net exports) - and as mentioned in the interview, if you have your own currency this is not at all a problem.
But even if you look into the time before the shift to neoliberalism you will discover that there was a lot of debt. The shift to neoliberalism was *not* a shift from an industrial economy to a debt driven economy, what was changed was just who makes the debt. Back in fordian capitalism, debt was largely made by the industry. Why? -Because they had to pay so high taxes *and* wages that debt was the only way for them to buy new machines or build new factories. But it never became a problem for them, because these machines (together with the constantly increasing wages) also enabled them to make enough money over time to pay the debt back. So, debt isn't the problem, the distribution of debt (and the causes for the distribution) is. The moral language used in this video is totally inappropriate.
One question I have is, why do you wish to save the social relations of capitalism? Can it be reformed? Perhaps, but why would you want to?
And do you have any Post-Keysnian literature you recommend where I could learn more?
Markus Pfeifer A healthy economy requires 3% growth, as it provides a positive rate of return. This is compound growth, so imagine it like an exponential curve. You will eventually reach a point where you either cannot meet the growth target or there are no more ressources. Essentially, 3% compound growth is necessary to capitalism, but will inevitably be its collapse.
Reality4Peace : as I mentioned, the best Post-Keynesian literature is unfortunately German. If you speak German, I would recommend "Kein Kapitalismus ist auch keine Lösung" by Ulrike Herrmann or "Das Ende der Massenarbeitslosigkeit" by Heiner Flassbeck and Friderike Spiecker.
And I don't want to save social relations of capitalism, I'd prefer what Richard Wolff proposes: a democratization of the workplace. However, all we would achieve by that is a market economy where the companies internally work in a democratic way. That might entail lots of other changes, but it stays a market economy - and hence, we inevitably need to talk also about regulation and public interventions. And here it becomes necessary to talk about which kinds of interventions will work and which ones won't work - which is why the Post-Keynesian analysis is so important.
Diaberu monk: nice allegation, but can you prove that capitalism needs 3% growth? It doesn't seem like you have even read what I wrote or really thought about it.
Markus Pfeifer I just said: around 3% growth is the point at which an economy has a positive rate of return. Obviously a negative rate of return means an economic downturn. The idea of 3% growth isn’t a marxist concept, it’s a fixation of most mainstream economists. Just google ‘3 percent economic growth’ to see countless articles from economists who use it as a measuring stick for a healthy economy.
Harvey explains it:
“So let us take a 3 percent compound rate of growth as the norm. This is the growth rate that permits most if not all capitalists to gain a positive rate of return on their capital. To keep to a satisfactory growth rate right now would mean finding profitable investment opportunities for an extra nearly $2 trillion compared to the ‘mere’ $6 billion that was needed in 1970. By the time 2030 rolls around, when estimates suggest the global economy should be more than $96 trillion, profitable investment opportunities of close to $3 trillion will be needed. Thereafter the numbers become astronomical.”
could you repeat the name of the Italian Marxist-feminist theorist on attention economies? i didn’t catch it clearly in the video at around 57:40
oh, Tiziana Terranova!
What happens in China, lol, maybe they just don’t talk so much but do, just do without thinking so much.. that’s pretty bad in a way actually (say, destroying human-natures (if there is a definition of ‘human nature’ lol)), but it is also good in a way because even 5 years old girl wants, and’s taught to make money is the most important thing, let alone adults ..
Luke Yin China has an Autocratic Capitalist system.
Imagine if Brits watched this instead of the usual Liberal/Conservative propaganda, man i wish you guys were less docile.
I would really like to hear what Harvey says about Engels and his analysis. For example, he did try to understand the issues around the family and the demands of capitalism. Engels is often dismissed as Marx's straight man, but, right or wrong, there is a genuine intelligence at work there who, nevertheless, recognised Marx's genius.
Any ideas anyone?
You can track how long ago this was filmed by the size of Aron's deltoid growth since then.
b. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property., .... yes the right to OWN PROPERTY - not mentioned here
Nothing as such was left the need of that word looks necessary because it's alienated world(social realtion of production) of evil voice
Well Obama and The Bushes.... we’re haters of humanity! What about The Book of Revaluation? The “mark”??!!!!!!
marx pilled and based, a.k.a. red scare pilled
debt pee ownage
The 'red pilling' term comes from a movie, "The Matrix". I guess that movie didn't make it big in the UK, but it's more cultural than stupid.
The Matrix was huge in the UK. Use of term red pilling by alt right is obviously a cultural reference, and it is also a stupid term, lacking self reflection or an understanding of the themes of the film the Matrix. Lol.
This is doubtless Bastani's meaning.
Altruism
Capitalism can be summed up in three word's, winner's & looser's.
It destroys the planet, we all lose, one word losers.
Socialism high taxation detroys your savings to retire , it also makes polliticans richer like Australia
@@TheTazzietiger left social democracy country Australia, but still shit for middle class and upper class here
Marx is vastly over-rated , he is a very incisive economic thinker, an average philosopher and a poor psychologist. Economists will argue forever over abstract theory, which is better? capitalism or socialism? But they don't take into account the quality of the people in society. Either system of economic organisation can be good if it is being controlled and adapted by the right people. But otoh, both systems can be disastrous for society (and invariably are in modern times) because they are under the control of the wrong people. And the problem with economists is they don't understand that whether it is socialism or capitalism, the same people are in control. It was the same people who created Hitler and National Socialism, as created the Russian socialism, as created American capitalism. The money always comes from the same place, the people who control the world money supply.
Nazi Germany was actually fascist capitalism. Hitler's government had huge ties with private business interests.
Marx was a good observer, but he couldn’t survive a week of his “socialism”.
Decentralization and self reliance is the answer -- not government hand outs. Communism does not work neither does capitalism -- we need a new NEW System one that incentivizes and rewards those that contribute to society and we need to decentralize power.
kathleen smith wouldn’t that be what s libertarian believes?
Communism has never been tried, get over yourself
This guy, has horrible understanding (by design) of what Capitalism is.
Also, there is no such thing as Socialist mode of production, there is:
- private ownership (Monarchy, Slavery, Feudalism & Capitalism) all of which are exploitative and dictatorships by the owners and always is exploitation of the workers.
- state ownership (State Capitalism, which many people confuse with Communism, or Socialism, this is when state institutions act as individuals dictating production, and also can end up with exploitation of the workers).
- worker ownership (actual Communism, where workers own and self manage business they work in, as a collective, with democratic decision making and rewards going to workers only).
Erm... worker ownership is precisely what is meant by the term 'socialist mode of production'
@@monkeymox2544 but that is not really what Socialism is. Workers owned means of production is Communism.
@@EdinKukycommunism and socialism are the same thing. Also, there are no "workers" under soci/commu since labor and work have been assimilated to free time
@@chadmarx7718 communism and socialism are not the same thing. If they were, there would not be 2 different terms for it. Communism is an economic system, it is defined by worker's owned (and controlled) means of production, while socialism is more of a political (or social) system, which by the way can exist in Capitalist economic system, and it does so already.
@@EdinKuky no. There can be two terms for the same thing, there are many examples of that. Under socialism/communism, commodity production, money, the state, and classes have been abolished. This has been the standard view pre-Lenin and pre-ussr, and should have stayed that way. It cannot co-exist at the same time with capitalism. Read principles of communism by engels.
There has never been any socialism implemented anywhere, ever. The closest one could argue for when socialism was achieved was during the spanish revolution, but even then they never got to abolishing money, wage labour, the state, etc
This guy was the core of my university degree, almost worshipped. It was impossible to criticize anything he thought of. In the first 90 seconds he says the poor are getting poorer.... Just false. The disparity between the rich and poor may be growing but the poorest in world society are also getting richer by every measure.
repalce marx with jesus , tell me this isn't a religion
anthonyc3po Marxists require secular, materialist explanations for everything, but there is no scriptural basis for these severe restrictions on permissible avenues of thought. From this irreconcilable beginning, biblical doctrine and Marxist theory diverge still further.
I know marxism hates other religions . The science is in, humans don't live like this. So you have to change humans. 150 people in a village could live like what you want . Although 1960's compounds in the u.s. kind of says not even that.
Wow such lack of understanding of capitalism.
wow, no.
@@a_betancourth no what?
Democratic Socialism polliticans get richer , not you
Capitalism, 62 people own more then half the earths population :) great system.
Government owns your ass in Australia far worse