Fundamentals of Marx: A Theory of Transitions 

Marx is wrong about nationalising the means of production. So much concentrated Wealth inevitably creates corruption in attempt to control it. You can not leave the Wealth Extremely Concentrated and then hope that some perfect political mechanism will manage it in the name of the many. !!! ANY market, no matter how 'regulated' or 'non-regulated', ALWAYS results in Extreme Levels of Wealth Concentration. I, discovered that most transactions, between any two participants, exchange unequal 'Value' between the two participants i.e. one side benefits a bit more from a transaction than the other side. Such asymmetry inevitably results in extreme levels of Wealth concentration , even if the participant who benefits a bit more is selected completely randomly in each transaction. As long as the transactions keep happening the inevitable result over time is always Extreme levels of Wealth Concentration. (The velocity of the transactions and the size of a transaction affect the rate of Concentration of Wealth.) .... and that is an inherent problem of the free market caused by the tiny asymmetry of the exchanged 'Value' in each transaction. Now you can revise your comprehension of the nature of the free market! !!! We need politicians who are not afraid to say. 1) Businesses are just property and should be treated as such by the laws we make. (Businesses are not National Heritage therefore do not need help or saving.) 2) Businesses do not create jobs, the minimum purchasing power of the people creates the demand for jobs. 3) We must constantly increase the minimum purchasing power of the people. 4) The basic necessities of the modern life must be free for all , paid by taxes on the most Wealthy in our society. 5) Pooling resources (a.k.a. Nationalisation) is only useful if it reduces the cost and increases the quality for the most citizens. etc. The ABC-Tool for increase of the minimum purchasing power (Formula: 'Your minimum Purchasing Power' = 'minimum wage' + 'Benefits payments' - 'Cost of dignified living from cradle to grave') Increasing the purchasing power of the human-citizens makes them better consumers (i.e. a consumer is a human with disposable money to spend). Better consumers create the need for more jobs. More jobs allow more businesses to facilitate those jobs while pursuing 'Profit'. The ABC-tool: Any government must ensure that A, B, and C (all three requirements) are implemented simultaneously if they ever want to make everyone's lives better. A) Increase minimum wage B) Tax the Wealthy more C) Spend the extra tax revenue on valuable or necessary social programs. ( like, free education from cradle to grave, free basic haircuts, free public transport, free fiber-optic Internet, free healthcare, free basic food, free basic sex, free basic clothing, free basic accommodation, free basic phone calls, free basic clean water, etc.) Those three requirements must be enacted as one package ALWAYS .. .. or else, the people lose their minimum purchasing power.

@@reasonerenlightened2456 the marxist project lecture say: theory of transitions is complex and heterogeneous... rightly said because a nation is of complex and heterogeneous situations and circumstances... this could mean the process of economic nationalisation understandably take time, step by step, through socialism with a nation's characteristics governance... its how i understand the lecture...

@@reasonerenlightened2456 in your last narration, reminds me the many peasants and other commoners uprisings in ancient times china and korea... they demanded those that you numbered... the imperial families were unable to handle nobilities and big merchants... until uprisings targeted direct killing of nobilities... took many uprisings to have peasants/commoners backing imperial families... until again, nobilities produced puppet kings... eventually, it is the nobilities power struggles with whose own puppet king that eventually weakened them both... killed each others' increase of descendants for the choosing of a FIT KING... then came republics era that the east learned from napoleon/france...

​@@gofar5185 Human's selfish nature demands that if there is Profit to be made privatisation is the main goal of the individual. To go against that is to go against human nature. Therefore, believing in the process of natural "economic nationalisation" over time is making demands on the human nature. It is unrealistic to believe that core features of the human nature (greed, selfishness, etc.) could be controlled by laws. As I said, Marx's biggest mistake was to suggest the Wealth to be left extremely concentrated in "public" hands. The inevitable result of extremely concentrated wealth is 'Corruption' or/and 'Cronyism'. The correct approach to Wealth and Power for an optimal society is to treat Wealth and Power as if water, meaning, Laws must be made to "evaporate" Wealth and Power from places of extreme concertation and then distribute them evenly like rain falling on the ground to make green grow everywhere .... in perpetuity. ... like it is with the water in a weather system. The ONLY correct solution is, perpetual re-distribution of sufficient even amount of Wealth and Power to ensure the dignified existence of every single citizen. ( There should not be a single billionaire if there is a single homeless person) The decision of how much to redistribute must be based on a statistical mathematical model and must be removed from the decision making of a government. The role of the government is to enforce the re-distribution process. Forget Keynesian economics, or Milton Friedman's economics, or Marxists economics, or any other economics in existence now or in the past. The economics I described here is the ONLY correct one. (perpetual unconditional re-distribution, evenly, of Wealth and Power from places of Extreme concentration to ensure the DIGNIFIED existence of every citizen) You are welcome. I just improved on Marx.

@@reasonerenlightened2456 every society has own ways/methods of applying a theory... what is applicable in india dont necessarily mean its applicable in thailand... in east asia, it is tried as much to use, "balance"... as much, avoid "extremity"to either positive or negative... to pick up every word of a theory and apply in society is of course impossible... its like a recipe... all standard amounts of ingredients are there... still, the taste of a menu vary on every cook... privatisation among 10% wealthy, privatisation including upper middle class, privatisation of certain means of production, state owned or nationalisation of certain manufacturing means of production... depends on whatever has stronger motivations...

Sure, that would be a great video!

I believe the term you're looking for is "dual power."

Inqilab Zindabad ❤️

Yes I certainly agree with that. For the purposes of this video I was more referring to "determinism" in the sense of univariate causality

While I consider myself a Determinist, I don't think, that there is a perfect proof for it, because you can't test, if the chain of causation works every time in every place of our universe. But I could be wrong, so I am happy about criticism.

markam 2004 i think all evidence shows that we live in a strictly cause and effect reality. The only evidence that would suggest otherwise is the probabilisitic nature of quantum particles. That however still may be illusory due to imperfect understanding of quantum physics.

For Marx, as for Hegel, determination is immanent (content that expresses itself in its necessary form) therefore superior to the phenomenical developement of exterior relations of cause and effect

José Tortós cause and effect create things out of necessity and specific causes lead to specific effects. Cause and effect are why determinism exists.

Some of our other videos are more reachable. The last few videos are building on quite a few different concepts. If you're not familiar with them it may be difficult to unpack what's going here. I always worry about striking a balance between simplifying and accurately representing the theories. On the one hand, accessibility is crucial. On the other hand, some of the "deeper" components of theory are just naturally going to be harder to understand, especially without elaborating every underlying concept.

@@themarxistproject a lot of it might have to do with word choice. There are some A level terms that compound the difficulty levels of the concepts themselves. While I also enjoy learning new words and expanding my vocabulary, that's not what I'm here for.

@@MrTaxiRob also maybe the ones that build off an earlier discussed concepts could be organized like a series (pt 1 pt 2) so the vieiwer also has the background and can contextualize the heavier vocabulary

understanding a tgeory... a deceased president in south east asia was told about the "law of supply and demand"... the then president said, "scrap that law, phase it out"... same to any theory... need step by step lectures from lecturers to be able to understand the essence of a theory...

@@themarxistproject its but natural that a certain lecture is not supposed to enlighten everyone...

It doesn't say Marxism isn't deterministc, but its determinism isn't as simple and linear that many people, specially what the opponents of Marxism, think.

@@thechekist2044 Marx studied Spinoza, so when he and Engels say that Marxism is not deterministic, they mean exactly what they say.

Determinism is fatalistic and self defeating. If everything is determined why bother do anything at all? And where is the scientific proof that determinism is true? there isn't you can find deterministic models for QM and you can fund non-deterministic models, its an open question. The bottom line is, it contradicts our lived experience of having some measure of free will. Research also shows that ppl who believe in determinism tend to exhibit negative behavioral patterns as opposed to ppl who are normal. Dialectical materialism ultimately derives from Hegel, and Hegel shows convincingly imo that both determinism and freedom exist and in fact imply each other. Refer to the Science of logic. Sorry but you need to rethink this.

depends on how the upper masses can free themselves from excessive interpretations of a theory and excessive identifications by gender religion skin color physical features etc... leading to discrimination fights of one another... leading to fascists anti fascists neo nazis anti nazis far right far left ... all are "upper masses dilemma" within themselves... allowing identifications to be reasons of being adversaries... marxists are understandably of the upper hand because they have the books of marx as guidance... so marxists are the ones to understand better that identifications are not to be allowed to be used to create ill judgmentalism, ill discriminations toward one another... that any differences could be resolved by proper verbal reasoning...

@@gofar5185 glad we're on the same page comrade.