Відео

Richard Wolff is a "nuanced" Marxist (14:11)! I already had to embarrass Wolff in his debate with Yaron Brook - Wolff seems to not know that Marx had long ago criticized co-operatives. Hell, the entire Poverty of Philosophy is about Proudhon trying to rise "above" the proletariat and capitalists. Hierarchy is not only not the problem but the exploitation of labor is not of persons to other persons but of society to the workers (the workers exploit themselves at the social level). In this sense, Wolff is extremely vulgar and exoteric - surface-level even. In Chapter 27 of Volume 3 of Capital (I am assuming you read this Johnny because you said you "spent a lot of time" with Marx), you would know that Marx says co-operatives are just potentially a more efficient way of running capitalism - it can hold down wages in the name of solidarity! That's because the issue is capital-ism, not capitalists-ism. Wolff thinks it is hierarchy in the workplace. No. The issue is the industrial revolution has outstripped exchange based on labor (on the butcher and baker of Smith's time - that was NOT capitalism in Adam Smith's time). It is a crisis of labor-time, that it facilitates a socialization that undermines the pseudo-exchange on labor (on the basis of property in labor). The inability of economics to make sense of a society on the basis of labor manifested itself in the late 19th century with the "Marginal Revolution," which simply consummated the collapse of bourgeois property. Johnny, you really then do not know basic things. Again, you should talk. The amount of arrogance you showcase with your snarky cut-aways to you giggling and eyebrow gestures are cringe, given that you are falling down on basic things

Thank you!

Das Krapital. It's garbage. Reading the first two books is self torture.

In terms of the plagiarism of Thomas Dilorenzo at 12:25 regarding Thanksgiving and "socialism" (!) The better argument is that America is where bourgeois society is discovered e.g., a society based on labor. French and Spanish colonies in the Americas brought feudal systems of property but the English colonies brought bourgeois right. That's why it came into conflict with the overreach of Parliament ('taxation without representation'), because the modern form of representation is based on bourgeois property - labor. This is a point that Marx and Engels point out a billion times - that Smith and Hegel make- but you are so hung-up on trying to cancel them, that you cannot make basic points. This is why the founding fathers called themselves "Britons" and Jefferson defended "allodial" property in his 1775 Summary of the Rights of British America e.g., bourgeois property (labor), not based on feudal custom. These are the "inalienable rights" that Jefferson wrote about in the constitution - in bourgeois society, one cannot alienate their labor (for the right to alienate is based on having property in the same being - one cannot voluntarily alienate their right to alienate). Marx agrees. That's why "alienated" labor really is "estranged labor" - a self-contradiction of society.

Can't believe how quickly this conversation is evolving! It's like a whirlwind of ideas and insights.😚

10:34 Bourgeoisie =/= Capitalist. Bourgeoisie means urban-dweller. That means everyone. Worker and capitalist are bourgeoisie. This is why class is not caste or estate. This is why oppressor and oppressed DOES NOT grasp capitalism - according to the Very "Real Karl Marx" you are trying to cancel in this video. Here is a personal friend of Marx on this very issue "To prevent misunderstandings and wrong impressions, we must become fully conscious of the difference between “political” and “capitalistic.” These two ideas, which because of the ambiguity of the German word “Buerger” are very easily confused by us, must be clearly separated from each other. In France the word “bourgeois,” which in the middle ages had the same meaning as our “Buerger,” in the course of time and of economic development gradually assumed the meaning of “great-capitalist;” whereas we Germans for this latter idea borrow the French word “bourgeois,” but also use concurrently the German words “Buerger,” and “buergerlich” without noticing the difference. So there arises a confusion of language which is anything but conducive to clearness of conception. We speak of “buergerlich” society, and mean modern capitalistic bourgeois society. We speak of “buergerlich” spirit, “buergerlich” freedom, and mean a democratic spirit of freedom such as the citizenry had in former times when it was fighting the priests and feudal landlords, which spirit, however, is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the capitalistic, and hence reactionary, landlord and priest coddling citizenry, or bourgeoisie of to-day. The correctness of the so-called materialistic conception of history, which considers the political development as dependent on the economic, cannot be brought more strikingly and convincingly to the mind than by the change which in the course of the Nineteenth century has been wrought in the bourgeoisie. It can be demonstrated with the greatest precision how with the change in the productive relations a change of political view and attitude has taken place in the bourgeoisie. Every step forward in economic development has been a step forward in the development of class antagonisms and a step in the approach of the bourgeoisie towards its old enemies, the landlords and priests, and a step in drawing away from the rising proletariat, which in order to effect its emancipation, must advocate equal rights for all men and the democratic principles formerly supported by the bourgeoisie. The moment the proletariat steps forth as a class separate from the bourgeoisie and having interests opposed to it, from that moment the bourgeoisie ceased to be democratic. In the states of the European continent this reaction falls in a characteristic manner just in a period which is usually called the revolutionary period par excellence - in the period of the February and March revolutions. The contradiction is only an apparent one. The February revolution was a tardy victory of bourgeois idealism which stirred up the material interests of bourgeois realism to contradiction, to opposition and to reaction. The premature outbreak of the proletarian revolution (in the battle of June, 1848, at Paris), which followed upon the heels of the belated outbreak of the bourgeois revolution, drove the bourgeoisie over to the side of its hereditary enemy, because it foresaw in the victory of the proletariat the downfall of capitalism. In France Napoleon was elected President, and in Germany the bourgeoisie even in the honeymoon of the March revolution longed for a deliverer which would down the red specter. Thus the “black reaction,” which in 1849 followed our revolution, was in fact simply the true character of this revolution, stripped of its fantastic deceptive dress of gilded phrases. Under the rule of capitalism the bourgeoisie was forced to become politically reactionary so far as it was capitalistic or stood under capitalistic influence. The “black reaction” which half a century ago spread over the European continent, was just as much a historical necessity as the still blacker reaction of the present zigzag policy of penitentiary bills which capitalism in a fit of desperation has forced upon us." www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1899/nocomp/nocomp.htm?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0t8K9FEytXWvZc9t2xig0ojXg5O573mynQWNFj-RnqHF20fDy6oYr-mFg_aem_HbRd2lsZR-95y-0hvtc6kw#s05

You say at 10:!5 that one of the basic concepts of Marx is that private property should be abolished. You also claim to have spent "time" (!) reading Marx. But if you have, then you would know that his whole point is that capitalism is the destruction of private property. That's why it is a crisis - the "industrial forces of production" outstrip "bourgeois social relations" or those based on labor (which any libertarian, from Hayek to Rothbard to Mises would hold as the basis of property - homesteading, baby!) Hence why Marx could that unlike the propertylessness of ancient Society (which is actually what you accuse him of saying), the modern form of *PRODUCING* property is self-contradictory; it destroys property. "The antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection, in its internal relation, not yet grasped as a contradiction. It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.). It does not yet appear as having been established by private property itself. But labour, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction - hence a dynamic relationship driving towards resolution." www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm And again 4 years later: "We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property? But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. " www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm This is also why he writes to Ruge in 1843 that Communism is "infected" with its opposite, "private property," because actually what Communism is doing is perfecting private property. Communism is a "reflex in thought" (Engels) of the self-contradiction of property. What the libertarians do is try to return to pre-industrial revolution bourgeois society, when there was not yet the contradiction. Really, libertarianism is a post-1848 reaction to Bonapartism. platypus1917.org/2021/12/01/what-can-one-learn-from-the-right/

Children have a God-given right to natural puberty. Nobody has any right to take it away.

There are more reasons to be optimistic than pessimistic in this case. Europe's shutting down their gender clinics. US states are prohibiting "gendering affirming" care on minors. Parents are rising up against schools who are hiding information about their kids. The absurdity and barbarity of this practice is being more openly discussed. We will look back in two years, or sooner, and be horrified at what we allowed to be done to our kids. And we should be. Cleaning out the institutional rot will take more time. But the light is coming for them. They can't hide from reality.

Hi there friends! Lots of great comments already I see! And, of course, a few "you don't understand Marx" per the usual. Keep 'em coming. I'd love to be surprised with something Marx got right besides being a very good polemical fiction writer. Here's the clips I reference: Jordan Peterson interview with Paul Kengor: ua-cam.com/video/LOFIHp6aTuE/v-deo.htmlsi=h3OfeDNV5gYh0JxH “Mises vs. Marx” rap battle: ua-cam.com/video/QwqnRYPcrl0/v-deo.htmlsi=gcBrtDkUTBtGBitD

Socialism always has a iconic dictator. It is baked in. Most of those who are for socialism are also seeking to be the dictator, or be part of the oligarcy that is formed. Ask where they see themselves in this socialist order?

The same thing is happening in Canada - it’s deplorable and the intent is to wreck their lives in every possible sense.

Marx' prediction and prescriptions have proven to be wrong. His diescription -- of society and history were -- according to Popper -- worth reading.

My favorite irony about Marx? The EU issued a €0 Bill with his name on it. And sold it for €5.

Don't give up Dr. Haim!

Lawfare will be a major player in ww 3

Look, Marx was a racist. And while your kids are younger than mine, my are of the generation you claim love Marxism. None of my kids are Marxist and none of them were indoctrinated. Picking on the extreme fringe is a waste if time. Unless you want to talk about the extreme fringe on the Right, which i suspect you will never do because you’re a card carrying member of that fringe. Feel pretty good about Justice Alito & Thomas? I wonder.

Is there a context in which that man would ever be considered a hero? That was a rhetorical question, the answer is no.

i wonder if Adam and John can stop making fun of short men, calling them petite.

Karl Marx, was and remains the "epiphany" of socio-pathological parasitic and anti-life consciousness!

Shut up about racism. It's time to stop caring about that crap.

History is not a cartoon. Communism will win

Screw Karl Marx, Marxism and those sucking for his idea

what has become legal and illegal is insane!!!!

If only it was just Texas Children's Hospital. Vanderbilt, St. Louis, Boston, etc. etc. It's happening everywhere in the US, and when exposed, the typical response is for hospitals to immediately take down their websites and hide. Disgusting. Europe is well ahead of the US in shutting down this criminal enterprise.

The point of this Marx bashing is not really to bash Marx, which is beating a dead horse. It is to discredit the "woke" professors whose ideology the right claims is a hidden form of Marxism because it allegedly shares the same "collectivist" demand for equality of outcome and social levelling. In reality most of "woke" ideology is just progressive liberalism and identity politics. The shocking doctrine they espouse is just a variant on equal opportunity, but it dares to suggest the ideal is not fully achieved. There is no call for abolishing private property anywhere in sight. There are literally seven actual Marxists in the academy and they are all in their seventies. These right-wingers have to conjure up the spectre of Marx lurking everywhere to smear progressives they don't like. It is just a variant of the old red baiting.

For anybody interested in more information, I suggest the work of Hannah Barnes, Helen Joyce, Chris Rufo, Hilary Cass, and Michael Schellenberger's "The WPATH Files." Excellent investigative work into the worst medical scandal in memory.

Mass formation psychosis...I call it the "Fauci cult" ppl don't want to admit they were misled during COVID by the "experts" profiting from it.

It’s amazing to me that a man whose ideas have consistently been disproven in practice, have brought nothing but misery, and was a well documented piece of shit in his personal life continues to be regarded so highly.

Hes a GNOSTIC

Doctors have to report bullet wounds and signs of serious problems. I wish a Dr. would have reported a family member"s clear domestic abuse when she was too afraid to. The situation could have turned out differently.

it is very clear in this video that the guy talking is not an expert about Karl Marx. Next.

This thirst white dudes have to be the ones to validate everything is exhausting. The history of this country does not have a history of dignity for all…you both sound like the very people who think like they speak for all but don’t know very much beyond their own narrow experiences.

When you hear Marx…think Thanatos. The “death wish” intrinsic to Freudian psychology 😉

DIVERSITY DESTRUCTION

It is beyond stupid to criticize an atheist for his supposed “satanism” as displayed in some teenage poetry.

A strange twist of history where the supposedly “racist” Marx helps to create a movement that today is the most critical of racist white supremacy.

He truly was a despicable human being. A racist and antisemite and yet Black Lives Matter calls themselves trained Marxist. Very Frustrating to say the least.

your understanding of the german philosophical tradition is outstanding. Please keep up the fantastic scholarly work. I can't wait for your Kant and Hegel videos ...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

What’s more illustrative of Marx’s views, that he publicly supported Lincoln’s war to abolish slavery or some private letters that attack his son-in-law’s skin color?

As a fellow Hye, I am so proud of this man. Loved your Karl Marx video too. So you Earned a new subscriber.

Just a typical biden supporter.

What we have in the western sociery are the ramblings of all of Laputa.

A few things about this case: - The procedures were legal when they were performed. - He accessed protected health information that he had no work-related reason to access. In fact, he requested access AFTER he worked at the hospital. - He turned over the PHI to a conservative advocacy group-NOT law enforcement.

Marxism and Marx are two different things. No one's perfect. Look in the mirror. Honestly, I've never met an economist who knew what they were talking about. Still, how is it that he so appreciated Lincoln? Most world leaders are a little nuts. The surrealists who rose in the twenties, and who were later "cancelled", often talked about their disgust with the world and its leaders. Considering the catastrophe of WW1, it's hard to argue. As far as the capitalist colonists, they then went on to slaughter the Pequots in the name of God.

Shows how screwed this government is, everything with common sense is now wrong. Anything that is totally ignorant and down right stupid is considered correct. We have to get back to a morally and ethically correct.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20 -kjv)🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

Aptly explained. Easily Marx's writings/philosophies the work of an unhinged individual ...but now we have the historical outcome if played out in all its glory, with multiple millions become the grist for mill. I thank you for all your efforts and wish you, Blessings and Shalom in Him

Spelling correction Engles- not Ernst.

My favorite dispropf of Marx is thanhe said the Native Americans could not develope capitalism because try had not gone through feudalism. In reality Native Americans had been using capital trade for 800 years before the Columbian exchange.