Reasons Karl Marx and Marxism are Wrong 

Well said! I would also add that Marx believed that society should operate like a “hive mind”: Where people are like worker bees. There’s two problems with this view: 1) There’s something innate in every human to be recognized as an individual and stand out from the rest in some way. Marxism destroys individuality and exceptionalism, which goes against the human spirit. 2) A hive mind society has to have a “Queen bee”, aka a ruling class. So who gets to be the rulers?The problem is, in Marxism, the only way to become a queen bee is through force/violence, and that’s also why they use force/violence to keep their power.

I believe there is a big misunderstanding here on what class actually means. Here it is portrayed as something solely determined by your personal wealth. This however in my opinion is an overly simplified explannation. Class means also level of education, economic attitude, behaviors and customs and the choices available to you in your life. You said that class is your choice and for example you could work less and spend more time on your family implying this will lower your class in exchange for more time with your loved ones. However, to members of the lower class this often isn't even an option because they have to work to keep food on the table. Respectfully, I believe you are trapped too much in your middle class mindset so you cannot get a full grasp on the entire concept of class. This is of course completely normal as we all live in some sort of bubble but I would encourage everyone to just educate themselves about what might be going on in other bubbles.

You summed it up so perfectly! I traveled on business trips to many eastern european countries that have been ravaged for decades by Marx's ideology and you still can see the scars on society and economy today. Especially Ukraine (before the current war) and Romania (which is a very beautiful counry and highly recommend for traveling. Some countries like Poland and Czech Republic have made remarkable turns since the fall of the Iron Curtain and almost caught up with western european wage standards. That's why I don't understand and get highly irriated/fuming angry when liberals in the West think in all earnest socialist ideas are the only viable option and alternative to "capitalism and its system". That's why you find the staunchest defenders of democracy, free markets and human rights against Marx's sh...y ideas in eastern european countries . Those people had to live through this hell for decades and don't want it back at all cost.

this vid is an eye roll generator for anyone who has actually read marx

"Sometimes its your choice to be those classes" Yes sir

Your understanding of class consciousness leaves *MUCH* to be desired. Waxing poetic about eating ramen noodles to being an entrepreneur out of your garage would have been slightly hysterical if it wasn't so horrifying. You need to spend time thinking about the initial conditions that present people with the options they have to choose from *in the first place* vis-a-vis their path in life. You need to spend less time thinking about the options themselves that people choose and more about the initial conditions that engender the set of options people have to choose from in the first place. Question: Have you read anything from Marx OUTSIDE the manifesto?

3:21 interesting point… reminds me of something I recently read: “Our mind’s duty is to keep us alive. Our consciousness’s duty is to help us feel fulfilled. Your soul is the reason why you’re even on this journey in the first place - to find peace, love, and joy for yourself.” Maybe this is in part why Communism failed do spectacularly in the real world, and why post-Communist countries like the former Soviets and the former PRC are such moral and ethical wastelands ruled by genocidal maniacs… they forgot their souls were valuable. Narcissists make the same mistake, taking themselves to be the survival unit, identifying with the mind itself instead of identifying as a being that has a mind.

When people talk about socialism and communism in all these countries where it’s failed. They always say well, they didn’t implement it right but we can do it right this time!

This is an interesting video but chiefly because it would be difficult to imagine more misrepresentation and misunderstandings and downright lies into one video. Congratulations for that at least "Mr Free Market'".

Nietzsche: "God is dead" God: " Nietzsche is dead".

Mark, these comments suggest you are being trolled by bots. You make perfect sense and I would love to take a class or lecture series from you. And I still want to see your name spelled out. It sounds like "beer-not" but that can't be right. Love your vids.

Marx's classes are based on how you make your money, not how rich you are. It's not rich vs. poor, but owners vs. workers. What separates the bourgeoisie from the proletariat is the fact that they skim off the profit of the actual creators of value (the workers). It is technically possible to be relatively well-off while still being a member of the working class (by being an expert in a highly specialized field, such as a neurosurgeon, for instance). It is not comparable to wealth-hoarding by the capitalist class. And before you say "but many company owners do work too!", keep in mind that management of a company is not the same as ownership of it. There are CEOs who are wage workers, but they are not necessarily bourgeoisie unless they also own stake in the company (and have decision-making power over it).

I just discovered your channel, and it's incredible. I will spread it around as much as I can. You touched on one of the fundamental principles that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Great work!

As a Maxist I still think about the "big questions" you mention in your 4th point. I just like to try to answer them myself, instead of having some religion do that for me. I think it is far more interesting to philisophize about these questions yourself and then ofcourse also talk with others about them, than just taking what some religion says at face value and just going with that. Marx and Marxism haven't answered these questions simply because there isn't really a scientific way to answer them.

Marx is not the author of Labor theory of value, he took over this theory from Adam Smith, resp. David Ricardo. Value is different from price. You can bargain about the price but not about value. The price is subjective while value is objective. The price sometimes correlates with the value, sometimes not. If something is to be examinated scientifically, objective scales are needed. Without asking what is the (objective) value of some product there could be no economic science, just pseudoscience.

You obviously don’t understand what Marx meant about all of these issues. And to say he was wrong 100% is an overstatement. But there is one thing you said I agree with, in the last statement. 1. Labor Theory of Value. Marx was NOT saying that Labor Value was equal to the Price, or how much people value something in a market or even money. He was going by John Locke’s, Adam Smith’s and others idea of Labor Value which was that a person has the right to the added value their labor produces. For Locke specifically, he justified private property because it was a means by which a person could secure the fruits of their labor. Without the labor theory of value there is no justification for private property at all. Marx saw in the industrial era that workers could not secure the fruits of their labor because they did not own the means of production, so Marx believed the way they could is for laborers to mutually own the means of production. And he made a distinction between private property(means of production) and personal property (a house, a tool, a short etc). He was seeing ways in which the added value was not appropriated by someone else (the capitalist). 2. Class Struggle is merely a recognition of different groups with different interests. If you had a job with an employer would you like to get paid more? Most people would say yes. Getting paid more is in the interest of the employee, paying less is in the interest of the employer. That is pretty simple to understand. Economic Determinism basically says economic forces shape, and define political, social, cultural, intellectual, and technological aspects of a civilization. This can easily be demonstrated by looking at new inventions. It has nothing to do with social engineering. It has to do with a basic observation of history. In the feudal System the economic forces created one cultural milieu and politics with the introduction of capitalism society and political power shifted from a. Rentier system (Lords and Serfs) to ownership of production system (employee and employer). Marx‘s idea was that democracy would increase if workers owned their own means of production, because it would place democracy in the workplace. Materialism vs Idealism. Philosophically Marx is often thought of as a materialist. I don’t agree with this assessment because of his alienation theory. He obviously believed there was an a priori human nature of which humans are alienated from. I think Marx‘s alienation idea was never understood well by people like Lenin. Lenin was definitely an anti-idealist even ridiculing Kant in a ridiculous way in one of his essays. I believe there is an a priori human nature and I think a long line of German thinkers Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Jung etc. believed the same. And this requires an attention in a broader way than Marx’s alienation theory did. But just for the record Lenin’s statement on Religion was „it is a personal affair“ and freedom of religion was in most ML constitutions. Lenin’s statement was practically Jeffersonian in content. In this area I agree, but there is a whole school of Marxism that considers Leninist material reductionism „profane Marxism“ and focus on Marx’s alienation theory as a way to address the idealist concerns in relationship to material concerns. So in conclusion I would suggest that you read more on the topic. You seem to be jumping to some rather strange conclusions but that is natural in a society which is saturated with anti-Marxist misinformation. And why is there this much misinformation out their? Because it isn’t in the interests of a capitalist class (billionaires) to have people be informed on the topic. Why else would the Wilkes and Koch‘s and others spend billions of dollars creating the propaganda in the first place? Because it serves their interests to misinform the public.

Lots of negtivity in the comments. I have listened up to the 2nd point, and having read the Communist Manifesto, this point is spot on! And to those who agree with Marx, imagine a scenario in which the state puts thousands of people to work digging holes, and puts more thousands of people filling up the holes? Whats the value of these 'non-holes?' People have to find an activity that the rest of society values and then trade that activity proportionate to the rate that society valued it- aka the free-market. And another beauty of the free-market is that the calculation of the price of any good or service is distributed across all the market participants, not some small centralised group of govt officials. Living in Africa, which has an obession with Marxist thinking, it amazes me that people dont see that they are simply trading one group of relatively fluid, meritous overlords, for an inefficient, power hungry and ultimately murderous one- aka the state

Enjoy your insights and appreciate your point of view.

impressive how many cliches you invoke in 5 min. i dont mean to cause any offense to you, but you just dont understand any of what youre saying. Like straight up

@EconLessons How you would comment tendency, that high living standard countries are less religious? (say Scandinavia?)

Marx didn't understand that interest is a result of the difference in time preference and thus the time value of money. Money received in the future for the sale of worker produced goods is going to be higher to compensate for time preference. The Austrian economists uncovered this and that all investments gravitate to time preference as goods supplied gravitate to equilibrium as more or less investment is allocated in a time structure. People pointed this out to Marx but he decided to publish his book "Das Capital" anyway.

Anecdotes, buzzwords and misinformation… ending with a religious personal belief in essence “I’d rather have my faith than people have food” and that demonstrates all you need to know about this waste of time

Are you Garth from Wayne's World?

Refuted in 5 minutes the thinker taken so seriously by so many millions over the last 150 years. And it would appear without even reading his work!

Cannot deny “Old fashion religion? “ Now I know you are crazy.

I was randomly recommended your video. I completely disagree with you but I would like to respectfully help you see the other side a bit better. Marxism or Marxist thinking is more of a sociological framework. Socialism and Communism are a call to action from that framework, but lets set them aside for now. In a society, there are many people and many roles. Marxist thought focuses on the roles of social classes and political economy. These two foci are connected with ALOT of things, so often Marxism extends its perspective far and wide. Social hierarchy is a means to govern a society but its at the cost of abuses of power. Often these abuses are referred to as 'exploitation'. The government, the church, bosses, bankers, politicians... are all roles we put our trust in to have a functioning society. Yet, we all know of corruption and abuses they commit. Marx was investigating the sociological mechanisms that could describe what was happening and why. A core principal to his approach was to have a material analysis (ie follow the money/resources). One could easily wave away ideological dogma as just made up words, so having material proof or naturalistic understanding gave the framework merit. Now that's all background info. Let me address your 4 points. 1) A liberal class structure with social mobility is a VERY nice thing we have in the developed world. It is much better than the previous systems. However, it has flaws. The very notion that poverty should remain to exist just to prop up a system is horrifying. The material sufferings of poverty (ignoring mental and spiritual suffering) alone is obtuse when one of the best things about capitalism is its fountain of abundance! 2) Adam Smith, David Ricardo, an Karl Marx believed in the labor theory of value. It was the mainstream economic view at that time. In most cases it still holds. It worked well for production and inhouse valuations of assets. It also is a better system for price for necessary goods or services. Yet, for a plethora of modern commodities, supply and demand is better. Remember, markets and the class structure of society are two separate things. 3) Sadly, one of the major view points to implement a solution (socialism) was often via a bloody political revolution. The economy would be restructured to a more fair or equal state. However, it was the political government that made this change. Additionally, other nations actively invaded and sabotaged these revolutions. Even the peaceful ones. So militaristic totalitarian states evolved. Types of socialism can been seen beyond those approaches. Look at past Yugoslavia, the Mondragon Corporation, and the like. I too believe in democracy. If I can vote in a representative for my congressional district, then why can I NOT vote in a representative to the board of directors that controls my company. Why do we run business entities as lordships and praise capital? Every business needs workers and its the workers who make the product or deliver the service. Just some few things to think about. 4) Ah the famous quote. Well lets look at religion in a materialistic / naturalistic way. People tithe in money, pooling in resources to build a church or temple or etc. They in essence invest in religion. Well if they invest, what do they get out? Mostly just nice words and positive vibes. That is to say, they receive the immaterial. Good feelings, redemption, and the like. Intangible assets. Well then, what is a similar thing that acts the same way in which you put in money and get out a positive feeling? Drugs. Opium is a wonderful pain killer and also cleverly addicting. The feeling of the divine could be seen as such. Obviously its a critical view, yet it doesn't damn it either. Which is what Marx meant. He knew of the corruptions of the church and its abuses. yet at the same time many church members when out to feed the poor and house the homeless and heal the sick. Perhaps, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the church to do that. Perhaps its the government or our economic system that should take on that burden. Anyways, I hope that helped.

Thanks for that talk. I have not studied Marxist literature in any depth (although have had discussions with a sibling who studied more than me). But my impression is as follows. There is a reason 5 which I would add to your list. It actually applies to any politico-economic system: not just that of Marx, Engels et al. If one posits a theory that describes, to some greater or lesser degree of detail, how humans within an economy should interact, behave, work in order to achieve a desirable outcome for the whole, then that is a step towards solving this big problem. But it's not much good unless you carefully consider *individual motivation* . OK, it may well be true that *IF* society were to be divided into groups/classes/categories of person who engage in different forms of productive pursuit, throughout their lives, *THEN* the result would be that the whole society would work very well, with a high standard of living, contentment, happiness and so on. But *how are you going to persuade* 100 million assorted minds to actually do that: to think and behave in conformance with the wonderful theory? This particular how? question is a very difficult challenge. --And in my view one terribly neglected by Marx et al. One has to devise the economic theory. Then, if one wishes to instantiate it in practice, one has also to *sell* the economic theory, to a huge number of its participants. And one needs achieve such a high level of success, in this abstract sales project, that millions of people will come to *trust others* sufficiently to behave in conformance with their individual millionth part of the vast system of interlocking theoretically necessary behaviours.

Hello friend, I want to say that I’m coming to this from a place of love, not from a place of hate, but it is very clear to anyone who has studied the works of Marx that you haven’t. The points you’re making against Marxist thought are not really disputing Marx at all, but rather a straw man argument of Marxism that’s very far from the actual ideology. A few of the points you made are actually very pro Marxism, if you have studied Marx-especially your last point.

Only once do you quote Marx - I doubt you’ve read a single long form work of his, like his critique of capital. All I hear in this video is McCarthyist dogma, straw-manning the real critiques of Marx. How about the boom-bust cycle of capitalism, which is again sending us toward economic disaster? Marx doesn’t split classes into rich and poor, he splits them into bourgeois - the owners of capital - and proletariat - the workers. These are not the same as rich and poor - there can be wealthy proletariat and poor bourgeoisie, but his critique stems from not the vague classes you describe but very specific relations to capital. These are the foundations of Marxism, not the straw men you gingerly pull apart in your video. Your childish conceptions of Marx are that of a high schooler plagiarizing Milton Friedman. I disagree with some of Marx’s formulations as well, specifically with regard to religion, but this is just not well thought out. Learn about history for real substance, not this tired anti communist dogma

Great video! Have you heard of the Austrian school economics and if you had, What do you think of it?

I agree with you. I feel that is labor industries first civilization level of pay per money time work but that is only on the massive amount of people working in a low profile pay industries, that was in the early 1900 but by now that doesn’t work at all. So those old school books mostly needs to be disposed.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Oh, and YES!

1. Classes of people do exist and the central banking system needs them to exist too. 2. Supply and Demand pricing also has it's pitfalls and isn't an objective way of pricing. 3. I agree that people shouldn't be treated as cattle but they are, also in the current system, as I said classes exist. 4. Religion has a hard tendency to turn into extremism which then at times turns into terrorism. Marx was a smart person to recognize that. Although I don't think that economic comfort means a liberation of the soul, that would be extremely materialistic. It is people, community, that make people happy and of course that means a community in which one feels good. If you are a communist, you wouldn't be happy living in a capitalist environment but of course that is the same the other way around. So believes do make part of meaning and sense of belonging. The way you were talking about Russia, China, authoritarian places says it all, it conforms what I just explained in the most clear way anyone could possibly do it.

Wow! This one of your best videos! I believe that this video is precisely correct. It appears, however, that the Marxist bots are out in force. Either that, or Ayn Rand is far more popular than even I thought. I believe that you have committed the "sin" of mentioning "religion". Or possibly, it is the fact that you clearly believe in meaning and purpose in life. I find it interesting that people who deny "religion", and deny that there is meaning and purpose in life, are the very people who are so unhappy that they create "causes" to fill the vacuum to give their lives meaning and purpose, so that they will "feel" good. In essence they create their own "religion", with their own things that they declare to be "good" and "bad". It is all based totally on emotion and is irrational, but they can't see what they have done. Sadly, they never find happiness. Then there are the Ayn Rand objectivists. I agree with them on so many issues, but at the end of the day, I have donated to many causes that I believe are right and just. I do not believe that I exist just to maximize my economic profits. I am here to help my neighbor and myself, and to create a just society. If you don't like "religion", then call me a "humanist", but I do have a purpose, and my life does have meaning. I am happy when I do good for myself and my neighbors.

All over my head. But my personal experience of being in a union. In a union leave your career hopes, dreams, and creativity at the door. They have no place in a union. I extrapolate this experience to communism.

Interesting talk Mark, thank you! From my point of view, Marx was wrong for completely different reasons though. I believe Max Weber was right in his argument against Marx. You seem to stand on similar to Weber position, which puts the distribution and exchange higher than production, in terms of importance and influence. Your example of USSR "embracing" Marxism is wrong though. I was born and raised in USSR and let me tell you this - it never was embracing Marxism. It was just false in many ways. For example, the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" that was claimed to be the core foundation of the political system in the USSR in its best days. There was a dictatorship, alright. But, the people who were in power were NOT of proletariat. They were state-capitalists, warlords and whatever else. One thing they were not - they were not a proletariats. Joseph Dzhugashvili (aka Stalin) has never been of proletariat. Nikita Khruschev was a worker once, but that was way before he came to power. Same goes for the most of other claims about USSR. Each time you take that claim seriously and look into it, you find it was just false. So it is not a good example of a society embracing Marx. It was an example of feudal slavery society pretending to embrace Marx.

This is probably the worst attempt at dismissing marx I’ve ever heard.

Just wanted to say I’m a Christian and a Marxist, and while I agree with you generally that Marx was wrong about religion, I don’t agree with the way you framed it. Again, I don’t agree with him, but his views on religion being “the heart of a heartless world”, “sigh of the oppressed”, and so on, were a bit more complex than what people often give him credit for, only focusing on the “opiate of the masses point”. Also, it should be said that these points were part of the developing philosophy of young Karl, and not exactly an important part of Marxist theory, overall. This is of course part of why I can say I am a Marxist, while still having faith. Anyway, I don’t agree with him on that point, or you overall, but peace to you! ✌️

Number four leaves me flat. You imply that we need religion to answer the deeper meaning of life. The word "religion" implies identified or "organized" beliefs. I will decide for myself what my religion is or is not. I don't need anyone else's values or a shared experience with others to find meaning in my life.

Aw crap, I think I need to read Marx to understand your counterarguments. Though arguing that labor doesn't equate value because is inherently subjective makes sense. Like Louis Vutton purses cost more than most cars (I think) but I would not say have the same value.

Recently found your channel and I'm not a marxist but I think you didn't engage with the marxist argument correctly (you misrepresented the argument marx made) in the following segments: Counter to: The class struggle argument: The question is not that one cannot transition from one class of people to another, the argument is that the upper class, the oligarchs, are actively pursuing an anti-proletariat agenda. So even when you move from a lower class into the ruling class, the incentive structure put in place is for you to start screwing over those below you because that's how you get rich and keep your power. This is ofc, completely true. This is the class struggle. Why? because the economic oligarchs are not accountable to those below them. So the only type of economic operation where this does not happen is a cooperative because there the person in charge of the company is elected by the people working in the cooperative. Everywhere else the boss is either the boss because he owns the company, or is put there by shareholders that want to squeeze the workers' dry or the government if it's a state owned company. The labor theory of value: Why are you talking about prices? The labor theory of value is not about prices. Of course prices vary depending on all sorts of things. The problem here is with the world "value". You are thinking or pretending that "value" here means "cost" but that's like talking about "free" as meaning no-cost when in fact "free" means freedom. So In the labor theory of value, the word "value" is more about what we value in a piece of work. You VALUE your 8 years' old painting even if you couldn't sell it for a nickle. So in this case, we value the work that people do because the work is transformative. The fact that you can get a good price for your work that makes it worth doing economically is up to the market. The labor theory of value states that everything that a human puts work into is the thing that makes something less precious into something precious. So take a piece of cloth, whatever the prices of it is, you turn it into a T-Shirt and therefore, whatever you sell it for, the cost difference is the value that was added. Wether that "profit" was 1$ or 100$ it's all due to the value that the worker added to the cloth. If the labor theory of value were about prices it would say "and the price of a product should be commensurate to the wage it took to make it + cost of materials + 20% extra for profits" but that's not it. it's not a price-fixing idea, it's a "how to look at the stuff that people do in the world" idea. As for the other 2 points, to each their own. I don't really know what's better. cheers.

Lmao

The main reason is because it still presupposes that there is some ontological destination towards which we are heading, and the genius of hegel is that he already knew this. In this sense, Marx has ideological limitations that parallel those of religion.

1. That's simply absurd. You have an entirely idealist view of reality. Socio-economic classes for the vast majority of the population are completely rigid. The vast majority of people will die in the same class they are born in. You either own capital or you don't and if you don't, it is nigh impossible except for a select few lucky petty bourgeois to attain it. 2. Value ≠ Price. 3. Ah yes, you wouldn't want to live in the Soviet Union, the country that ended unemployment, homelessness and poverty, the country that had industrialized in 20 years and did so without exploiting other countries, the country that ended the autocracies of the tsars and the capitalists, the country which first embraced all progressive movements, and the country which conquered the cosmos for all humanity. 4."The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man - state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." -Karl Marx, Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Lots of thoughts but not a lot of reasons “I believe in free movement of labor” so you believe in open borders, yes? One person one vote plebiscites?

I don't know what you are talking about, but certainly it isn't Marx...

I choose to identify as a gender-fluid Bourgeois dolphin. Therefore, Marx is wrong.

Good explanation

" In the begining there was only darkness, inhabited by Rod, and an egg that contained Svarog. The egg cracked open, and Svarog climbed out; the dust from the shattering eggshell formed the sacred tree which rose to separate the heavens from the sea and the land. " Here now you can stop wondering where we came from

Beautifully said!

There is no such thing as a free market. It's more slogan than reality. But I guess it comes down to definitions . Free market is not perfect competition etc

There is way more than4 reasons why Marx was wrong

Your statements are mostly wrong. Higher class people usually celebrate more vacation then the lower class. The higher classas usually are much more flexible on their schedule, and can more easily mix work with leisure. A vacation and businessmeetings combined. Lower class have just a few days off, if they even can afford it. Second point about the margin is that an entrepreneur always has a goal how much percent of the revenue need to be profit. Sometimes even people get fired because the revenue is not high enough, even if they create value for the company. The surplus is the extra profit above payment of salary minus the risk margin for the possibillity of getting bankrupt. The enterpreneur keeps takes it away from the empoyee. Third in the time of Marx there was still a strong belief that everything can be proved scientifically. By saying it like that it seemed to have more credibiilty. And there is a sort of deterministic factor because of inconsistencies in a capitalist society, where wage is also purchasing power. If this lowers to much an economy gets destroyed. Rich people mostly save their money, not spent it. However due to socialiast factors inspired by Marx this did not happen because of the redistribtion of money by the governent. Marx did not account for this possibility. Fourth, about the point that religion in the time of Marx worked on autority and obedience, Marx saw this a problem and making people passive and not take in their hands their own fate. Modern spirituality is in reality in accordance with that, but when Marx lived there was no new age movement around. The real problem however with marxism is that the new master becomes the government and will oppress any individual expression as that is seen as dangerous. That is why it does not work, but not named by you.

There are only 2 classes in reality. The working class and the non-working class.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Why are we here? These are the questions that you say "we must answer." So what's the answer? If there is no accepted agreed upon answer (there isn't) and no reasonable indication that an answer is forthcoming, then the admonition that "we must answer these questions" is ridiculous, no? What religion has the answer to these questions that you say we must answer?

It does not look like you know what you are talking about.

When i here you talking...i get the idea that this marx..has thought verry deep...about greed and manipulation...

Rich Vs poor? No it was about worker vs owner. That’s what it always been and is. Not rich Vs poor, the rich just almost always happen to be the owners.

I interpret the 'opium of the masses' as meaning religion being a comfort blanket in times of stress. But why is there so much stress in every day life? The totalitarian states must offer the most stressful ways of life. Marxism works best when people are poverty stricken, live in depressing surroundings and where there is no refuge (eg. church). Here better conditions for life only comes from total obedience to the state. Cultural Marxism works in the same way in the West by means of an insidious secret society. If we got rid of this society there would be a lot less social stress and suicide.

You are dead wrong, just as Lenin was when it comes to Marx and his theories. I love Marx because he is the only one who has put up a viable economic plan for equality. Unfortunately, the inate flaws of humans will never allow it to come to fruition. The quote “from each to his ability, from each to his own needs” shows the naivety of Marx, but I still have much love for that man. What Marx expects from people is just as difficult as trying to actually, live the New Testament or follow orthodox Buddhism without error from everyone. Man can not get past the seven deadly sins. I am not religious, our ancestors had no issue identifying our faults.

The value of a Rolex watch has no bearing on the amount of labour put into this luxury object. They are made primarily by robots and other automation. The price of this Rolex watch can range widely, depending on supply, demand and physical location on earth. Its value is subjective; it's fungible with billions of other functionally identical watches. Rolex destroys all Marxist hypotheses. They Don't rise to the level of theories.

Marx is the father of communism and his thought was, is, and always will be that for communism,

excellent!!!!

I think I will remain poor for now because I know that I can easily become rich at any time whenever I feel like becoming rich in this . . . free society. Yeah, sure.

I reject Karl Marx. But I disagree that people shouldn't learn it. They should learn it not as a success but a failure.

I like this guys thoughts on Ukraine. But this is all wrong. Unchecked and unregulated Market Capitalism has been a disaster for poor people in the West and even more so in the second and third world. True Market Capitalism has never been allowed to happened anyway, because the playing field has been massively tilted in favour of corporations since the Powell Memorandum in the US. Very few people are "rich" at any point of their life, my generation can barely afford to buy a house. This is just a nonsensical thing for the chap to say, spoken as a true privileged white guy. Religion has historically appropriated the decent behaviours required for a large, stable human society to form and used it to leverage power and wealth for an elite few. There has never been a truly Communist state but inevitably the future will be communistic unless established power blocs prevent true post-scarcity economies from developing naturally through inefficient resource use (fossil instead of renewable) and limits on the production of consumer goods to keep prices inflated (tariffs, production licenses and quotas etc).

Stop ranting! There is class struggle to this day! And, you're supposed to eat ramen noodles when you are a student! AND, your reading comprehension of marx is simplistic at best

At the time when Marx was living there was a class struggle. So he was right. Today is different. It must be different Isn't this evident??? Why do you compare apples with oranges?

Please stop. You embarass yourself.

🙄

I don't know why his own tainted personal life was ignored by most sources? He himself was a terrible human being and he used Engle to hide his own mistakes, was a bigoted racist, sexist and a hypocrite. He wrote some great quotes and probably worthwhile theories but that all seems like an attempt by him to fuel his own narcissistic personality

You are weird. It is class struggle. IT is NOT a free society. 1% make the rules for the 99%. Who sets prices? We do not have supply and demand. The one percent own the assets, you are Labour. You have to work. To live. Take a nap. You are sleeping. ❤❤. Debt slavery.

Lol, he really has no understanding of Marx.

You probably should stick to your russophobic rants rather tha ridicule yourself on topics like this one, where more people are informed and competent in the west an can spot Your nonsense. Now just a couple of questions about your religion which os capitalism: the first known currency appeared 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia, yet, the capitalism started to emerge, at best, in its most redumentary form, 500 years ago. How come that, this supposedly superior system did not appear earlier, and why should we believe that this is the ultimate form of economic organisation?

You could have at least read Das Kapital or many introductions of it made by contemporary economists before making this video that just showed your ignorance on the topic.

LMAO, I was poor until I seized the means of my own production, also a "free" society (Imperial Core countries like America, Canada, Spain, Italy, Britian, Japan, etc.) can have a range of classes because they become pure bourgeois countries by exploiting huge populations like Japan did to China, Britain to India, and Belgium to the Congo, this is a Maoist pov but this is a poor analysis, assuming you're in America or Canada you country benefits off the exploitations of countries like the DRC through unfair trade, you're a petty bourgeois running defense for the big bourgeois

"People transfer classes relatively easy in a free society" LMAO

RU-vid needs a laugh react.

Because socialism is anti reason. Freedom is individual rights.

My friend, please, please read the room and go back to the fundamentals. Your characterisations are completely false and it comes across as someone who has formed their opinion based on hubris and ego alone

1 If you didn't want to live in a communist China or Cuba imagine how you'll feel living a fascist Cuba or tsarist Russia which you don't talk about and what democracy are you talking about because it can't be the sham where every president is a millionaire, lobbyist writes Policies and laws are passed in congress that aren't subject to what the pubic think or want 👍

Class struggle has nothing to do with "rich and poor" what are you talking about lmao. Precisely 93% of the price of a commodity can be determined by adding up all of the labour time. You can easily do this using input output tables these days and prove Labour of Theory correct. Just look at Paul Cockshotts or Anwar Shaikh work. China has had the fastest growing economy and fastest industrialization in human history, they are very prosperous and continue to be more prosperous everyday. I think it would be a lovely place to live and raise a faimily, much better then the USA with all the homeless and crime. No one cares about your idealism, you should base your ideology in material reality not mataphysics. Jesus Christ was a Communist, you should consider it aswell.

Ahahahah!

Nonsense. Class is extremely stable accross generations with most changes in class at the upper end of the wealth bracket. The higher one is on that bracket the easier it is to go up in class with available capital being the primary reason. The ability to acces that capital to start a business for instance is a huge advantage over those without that access to capital. Other than that though class is extremely stable and mostly unmoved by capitalism other than in small spurts of economic prosperity where some advantage can be earned and maintained hopefully. But in general if you're born poor you stay poor and if you're born rich you'll stay rich. The middle class is bifurcating and disappearing with most going down in class and some going up in class, but that's not necessarily by choice in most of these cases.

Well done, ignore the comments under this

Cuba could be prosperous country. US sanctions destroyed it. Same other semi socialist countries 😢

Sometime we have a trillion dollars othertimes we have 50 cents that so common it happens to everyone

Fair price of labour is a myth, the marketplace is not fair, otherwise how some peaple make billions in profits, other peaple earn a dollar an hour doing the hard work.