What's Up With Capitalism? A Marxist Perspective 

Go to North Korea and try to get food. You won't like Marxism anymore. You'll see in the starvation and the horrors of centralized production what Karl Marx wanted. Karl Marx hated people.

@@TomiDeLuna Since when did Karl Marx hated people?? Source???

@@thatnhoxiu PragerU

@@TomiDeLuna Karl Marx defined communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society. North Korea isn’t communist.

@@Zilicon NK is a capitalistic economy where Kim is the only shareholder. If neoliberals think NK is socialist just because they call themselves that, might as well call them democratic XD.

Duh. Universities want to squeeze all the money they can out of you. So many useless subjects are dragged out throughout the semester while making you think you're getting your money's worth. I remember having to do courses that I had already did in high school. Like why?

😅😅😅

MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D

Going to university shows you are willing to stay long term and show up everyday. Thus, making you a good slave for a corporation. We have unlimited access to knowledge in this modern day, you can teach YOURSELF to become anything.

Actually nobody will learn any objective truth from this video, it's overloaded with mindless bias and abject ignorance.

I would agree on this. However, workers are letting big businesses create them to be slaves. 1) When's the last time you took a job and negotiated your salary? 2) When's the last time you put your previous salary on the application? 3) When's the last time you had a job and looked for another one with a higher salary? This is the problem with modern day society in capitalism. People aren't pinning employers against employers. I wish I could dive more into California but that is literally a sh*t storm. It is failing due to capitalism causing part of the problem but it's more so of red-tape and taxation. A good example would be Coeur d'alene, Idaho; It's the "New California". However, it is/was a very conservative state. People are all flocking there but once they move in, want more amenities (parks, roads, lights, etc etc). So those are built up and it attracts more people that want to purchase; which increase housing costs. Then developers come in to make multi-family homes to help with the population boom; which helps with affordable housing and a boost in great amenities (bus systems, plazas, high dense commercial). Then congestion starts to happen and we start to tax more (CDA, ID has 2x on property tax for any out-of-state residents) and put up heavy restrictions on building. Which drastically increases both the single family homes; as well as multi-family affordable. Things become unaffordable because building is grinded to a halt. Whereas housing demand is still high or even getting higher due to limited supply. Restrictions on building create a need for LARGE venture capitalists' to take the risk on building (I've heard like 5+ years of planning and development in California before even breaking ground). And that's just kind-of the downward spiral. Did anyone want this? No but it's a gradual virus that takes over.

Vermino I agree with all of that. Its a domino effect of inflation causing migrating to occur. The issue though with California, for example, is that inflation is happing at a rapid speed, while income remains the same. Not only that, there is more on you plate (tasks at work) now that there is less employees per office. A real issue happening, that needs to stop, is the power of investors. Investors from all over the world are buying US property, without even seeing the house. No limitations. Buying out homebuyers who actually live in the city. That has to change....

Vermino If we keep this up, we will have 10% of the world’s population riding jet skis on a marina, and the other 90% living in tents.

@@RyanBugatti well large corporations are the ones creating regulations in a free market. Pretty much stopping competition from happening (think hair stylist needing a license) on one point, it helps to make sure no one is going to mess up your hair but on another point and more crucially, it keeps competition low as it takes money + time to get a license. Which increases prices onto the consumer. So large corporations like the telephone network, social media, aerospace, etc etc. should be split up, as well as not be allowed lobbyists in bed with our politicians. I believe Trump as an economist has the right idea. (Rather of had Ross Perot - but we got Bill and George instead) to control inflation, we need to keep our production in america to build the value of our fiat dollar back up. I hate everytime we have a crisis, we run to the reserve to print more money. (Inflation is good; especially with a growing population and economy) but hyper inflation like we saw a few months back is going to have long lasting effects to the people as a whole. (Tax on savings) I agree with you on people will be the last to see the inflation in their income. Unless they are savvy and look at external markets to negotiate a higher salary. One thing I hate about capitalism is that with inflation, if an employee forgets to get a raise within a timeframe, they will be at a loss their entire career (if they stay with the same company). The good news is we dont have pensions anymore that make us a "donkey chasing the carrot" for 30 years. We have the ability now to not be loyal and push ourselves to get higher wages. But I do agree that we will see a collapse sooner or later. It doesn't matter what "ism" we do. I think of it has a bicycle, you can keep it on two wheels for however long you like but sooner or later it's going to hit the ground.

@@RyanBugatti btw, I was in heart of Seattle and moved to a small town close to spokane. Bought a house for $72/sqft vs seattle being $300+/sqft. My wife and I make more money than we do in the city. We lost out amenities but gained freedom of our time.

How did you do on the test?

@@Zilicon probably not bad.

MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D

Don’t worry your English is good

You knew that trump is the Anti-Christ. The US and global economies are about to SUBMERGE. Neither of the establishments controlling the GOP and Democrats, nor the Trumps and Bidens among them, want real political party competition. They seek to retain their 2-party monopoly and keep sharing power 100% between them. US elections have NO effect on the FAILURE of capitalism. The failure: A select few make all the key decisions. These decisions determine the distribution of all wealth. The history of that distribution is based on politics. Who owns Washington ? The select few (majority share holders, the FED, the filthy rich directly shaped our government’s POLICY. the system is rigged, the seeds of racism are present. Risk is a move to the left. The most memorable pages in Das Kapital are the descriptive passages, culled from Parliamentary Blue Books, on the misery of the English working class. Marx believed that this misery would increase, while at the same time the monopoly of capital would become a fetter upon production until finally “the knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” The truth is the United States lost.
What won was a constricted politics defined by the range between the GOP and Democrats, Trump and Biden. Voters chose between two similar fantasies differentiated by two names: a return to “greatness” vs a return to “normal.” How ironic that Trump’s greatness and Biden’s normal both name the recent history that drove the US to its current scary conditions. In the ever more hyped blame game that this election was, US politics truly became “the evil of two lessers.” Fundamental questions actually confront the US now. Is US capitalism in terminal decline amid China’s ascendance? How do we do better than capitalism as our economic system given its inequalities, instabilities, and gross failures to safeguard public health? How can we best undo capitalism’s environmental damage? What can really overcome the centuries of damage done to African-Americans and other indigenous and people of color via white supremacy? On such basic questions, this electih questions and the parties’ alternative answers to them become inescapable centerpieces of US politics and subject to democratic decisions.

@@jamesmorton7881 So basically; Seize the means of production? Based and breadpilled

@Ann Campbell you could do that under socialism or communism too. The difference would be that the surplus value created by the sale of those products to you wouldn't go to a CEO. It would go to the workers of the grocery store or farm.

@Ann Campbell side note: "corporatism" has another name. It's called late stage capitalism. Because it's inevitable under a system that prioritizes profits over people.

It's supply and demand, this video is so stupid

Ralph _ no joke. I laughed my ass off when he said it’s because air doesn’t take labor.

@@ohwell6364 yeah lol I love this video, if this is the best communists can get then it's great😂

The profiteers - the big, corporate firms that dominate the US economy - have gained greatly at workers’ expense, especially over the last 40 years. They installed technology that cost millions of jobs. They relocated production overseas where wages and other costs are lower. The combination of fewer jobs and more people looking for them kept wages from rising for a long time. Skilled, secure, and well-paid jobs gave way to low-skill, insecure, and poorly paid positions. Labor unions lost members and power. Meanwhile, the income of the top 5% - employers and their top executives - grew dramatically at everyone else’s expense. US capitalism redistributed wealth upwards, from the middle and the poor to the rich. Employers and the Republican Party together deprived unions of their former power. The Democratic Party proved unwilling or unable to protect labor’s interests; it kept promising but not delivering. Automation, outsourcing jobs, and shrinking union memberships and power produced workers’ mounting hardships, bitterness, and anger. Taking on mountains of debt (for mortgages, autos, credit cards and college educations) only worsened their hardships. Then US capitalism’s 2008 crash exposed how the richest used the government to bail themselves out and further deepen inequality. Employees saw the US becoming a small knot of the super-wealthy surrounded by a sea of economic pain. Some upset and angry workers voted for Trump in 2016. They wondered whether a Trump/GOP government would deliver on its promises to “make America great again” by reversing the long decline of its working class majority. By now it should be clear that Trump’s promises may be more, louder and extreme, but they too have been broken. Inequality has gotten worse, government failure to prepare for or contain Covid-19 is catastrophic, and managing capitalism’s 2020 crash is another gross exercise in unjust economics. The last 40 years show that expecting protection or support for labor’s economic well-being from Republicans or Democrats is a tragic mistake. Labor leaders writing protest op-eds in newspapers will not work. Making some protest remarks while endorsing yet another Democratic Party ticket just repeats past mistakes. US capitalism’s decline continues as competing economies rise (China, the European Union, the BRICS countries, and so on). The rich in the US use their wealth to grab and hold everything they can amidst decline. Without a changed strategy, working class conditions will be taken down with and by the system’s decline. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ What the working class can do is move into the streets to stop “business as usual” until steps are taken to reverse the last 40 years’ redistribution of wealth. Workers must also stop endorsing and voting for candidates who do not serve their interests. Nothing would better show workers’ seriousness about reversing the last 40 years than building a new labor-based political party to change US politics. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

@@jamesmorton7881 that's so dumb, you should look at prosperity and not income inequality, the standard of living is continuously going up because the big businesses are competing to give us amazing products at cheaper prices that better our lives and make it easier to live, there's a large income inequality between Bill Gates and Donald Trump, they are both rich, income inequality is not a bad thing inherently, if everyone's getting richer then it's a good thing

Comrade Balkan Odyssey

@@corryburton9834 if communists only want power then why do we side with the powerless?

Yes, videos on similar topics are coming soon :)

MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D

He forgot to mention people eating their own children in Bolshevik Russia during the food famine if the 1920s. As well as the pile of dead bodies that has amassed every single time this idea of fairy tale of unicorns and rainbows has been attempted. Learn to be happy with what you have and if you don't like it learn a skill that you can market and don't be making chairs your entire life.

The capitalism of his day was laissez-faire ie free market capitalism, which ended in the 1890s with the Sherman Antitrust Act and progressive taxes. What the vid doesn't mention is that a lot of his ideas are part of our present economy through Keynes' interpretation, as Keynes was a known socialist. Also it may have helped to mention that Marx was a popular business correspondent for the New York Daily Tribine, and received his PhD from an elite university.

MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D

​@@tuberific454The Sherman Anti-Trust act was notorious for not being enforced much. It alone did not end the Gilded Age. Not even close. Also, Keynes wasn't a socialist in any sense of the word. He disagreed heavily with Marx. What does Marx going to university have to do with this video btw?

@@idontknow5249 My point was that a market ceases to be free once government takes an active and direct role in its affairs. So, while the Gilded Age did not end solely as a result of those policies, its so-called "free market" underpinnings were effectively redefined. Also, Keynes called himself a socialist, was actively engaged in socialist movements, and referred to his research as the "socialist project." While yes he did not outwardly align himself with Marx in particular, that doesn't mean he wasn't a socialist. Per ChatGPT, the so-called "mixed economies" ie the various iterations of social democracy including the US trace their roots to Marxist theory. Also, I reflexively mention Marx's credentials due to the broad misperceptions surrounding his background. In other words, it is not anyone's imagination that it is commonly repeated that Marx "was a business illiterate who inspired millions of deaths and failed economies." This of course from an academic perspective could not be further from the truth. Per ChatGPT, "Marxism is more aligned with western democracy and its principles of individual liberty than with Stalin's interpretation."

MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D

Have you lived in both systems? Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. At the moment I am writing this comment, there hasn't been a single country with this economic system

Just like you, I could say "I lived in both"... It would be a mistakr though. I've always lived in capitalism: first, State capitalism. The, private capitalism.

I fully agreed, but communist will deny that.

@@madjidmouas3519 Are you a marxist or communist?

@@jaysaini955 Nope!

MARXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AS IT';S ECONOMIC THEORY OF VAKLUE AND JUSTIFICATION!!!!! THE LABOUR THEIR OF VALUE WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE TRUE ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET USES THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IF YOU BELIEVE IN MARIXISM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORMM, THEN, YOU ARE, IN FACT, A SCIENCE-DENIER!!!!!!!!!! :D :D

The problem is that under capitalism, co-ops have a hard time with their business since the competition is with bosses who will do anything to get the most profits, like suppressing wages, extending working hours. Capitalism doesn't play fair

@@TheQueen-sw4th Spreading the profits fairly doesn't make you less competitive. The sum of every wage would still amount to the same cost. As for the empirical effectiveness of worker co-ops, they have similar productivity to single-owner businesses. Check this video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yZHYiz60R5Q.html

@@caiomh7605 But the whole point is to make as much profits for the business as possible. Businessmen obviously give workers a fraction of the labour they produce. The competition is how much profits could you make. How low must you pay your workers to do so? But I'll check out the video

@@TheQueen-sw4th I'm talking about splitting the profits more evenly (with equity), not increasing wages. The final cost of labour is the same, meaning that the final price to the consumer wouldn't change. The difference is that one system concentrates the surplus with the owner/shareholders, while the other splits the surplus among the co-op members. Equity also increases productivity, because workers who are rewarded for the prosperity of the company are more productive than workers who have fixed wages.

@@caiomh7605 Wait a second....are you....a socialist?....

W (who) TF do you imagine was going to pay for trump's MASSIVE debt ? THe Rich ? The Russians ? The F_GOP ? The millions who LOST their jobs resulting from the botched COVID response ? your are your kids are your grand kids are American who pay taxes driving that train, out of cocaine trouble ahead trouble behind don't think, your losing your mind

@@jamesmorton7881 bruh wtf are you saying I'm hella confused ??

@@Frenk33 Maybe he's responding to someone else? I am not sure.

@@knightlypoleaxe2501 Um... he's spamming to create dissentin within the USA. likely a Russian or Chinese bot.

Where do you study Marxian economics? There is only one university that teaches it in the US

Pesta Náme do yourself a favor and read Behold a Pale Horse instead.

That's good to hear. I am glad you found it helpful :) Enjoy the class consciousness.

No where in the manifesto does it say murder is wrong. Rethink your Ideology, or you could be the next victim. Cording to Marks if you make more money than I do I technically have the right to go murder your family steal your home? How much money do you make a year?

@@joedecker4227 what are you talking about? the communist manifesto is an economic theory book it’s not a book laying out laws about things like murder. you’re being ridiculous. and it’s not about people who just “make more money”. it’s about the top 1%, the big business CEOs, the absurdly wealthy, etc.

@@joedecker4227 u didn’t watch the video

The only Capitalist defence as to why I've ever heard is along the lines of "well, he risked investing in those means of production to employ you". Apparently a risk taken once entitles one to rob you of large chunks of your wage for what can be the rest of his life, not to mention that workers risk many things under the capitalist and are not compensated for it.

Because laws are designed to favor the capitalist, and people have been propagandized into not believing in the concept of labor theft, that the money stolen through exploitation was actually earned fairly.

Its his creation. He owns the business. He hired you to help him make money and you said yes.

market determines that instead of some mythical altruistic group of people....

I think the surplus value is kinda like rent. If not, you would usually have to pay people to use their equipment. And since workers dont pay rent to use the means of production to create value, the surplus value is the rent you pay for using his machinery

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it! This video draws a little bit from Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital' volume 1, but it is mainly based on one of his pamphlets, titled "Wage Labor and Capital", which is much more accessible. It can be read here if you are interested: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm In my opinion, the Communist Manifesto is not a very thorough summary of Marxist ideology. It was written to motivate the working class to revolt, rather than to provide detailed economic analysis. It thus has a lot missing from it, which is why it is so widely critiqued. People who criticize Marxism based only on the Manifesto most often have no idea about what Marxism actually is.

And yes, I did animate it myself. It takes quite a while, but I think it's worth it if it makes these concepts more accessible.

@@JimiSol hello im debating a capitalist but their saying that not everything needs labour to be exchangable (labour theory of value). lets say I had a shiny rock but traded it. but their was no labour so not everything needs labour to be exchanged. How do i counter argument this? and something about a previously unavailable use-value. thanks COMRADE!

There are only two classes of people represented in this video and I fall into neither category. I assume I’m the type that is taken out back and shot. And those workers who revolted and stole the owners property which he risked much to acquire, they have become the useless eaters who now produce things that are no longer necessary and are also taken out back and shot. Wouldn’t it be better for them to work to promote their standing in life and acquire their own means as the capitalist? Try reading Thomas Sowel… nobody dies in any revolutions in his books.

@@mrpoliticalguy5602 you had to first find the rock, then carry it to wherever you stored it

The true cost of production are not getting paid. Clean air is not free. Clean water is not free. Cheap labor has a hidden cost (government welfare). capitalist are stealing these items (not paying) to make even more profits A two class system is the end result. DEMOCRACY in the WORK PLACE. (labor has a real vested interest in the value added) capitalist, not so much ten yatchs ? twenty? does a CEO "EARN" 1000 time what you make ? OCTOBER 29, 2020 HEADLINES GDP GROWTH +30 % sound good, but it is not If you own a stock priced at $100 and it drops 30 percent, it is now worth $70. If it gains back 30 percent, it is then worth $91 (the gain is just $21 because 30 percent of 70 is 21). 100 BASELIN ------- 100--0 70 AFTER 30% DROP --- 70--DOWN 30% 91 AFTER 30% RISE-----91-- DOWN 9% 98 AFTER 40% RISE-----98-- DOWN 2% ( ( BASELINE -or+ NEW VALUE ) / BASELINE )( 100%) = % CHANGE PERCENTAGE BASELINE +/- NEW VALUE DIVIDED BY BASELINE TIMES 100% 100 DOWN TO 70 ( ( 100 - 70 ) / 100 )( 100%) = ( 30 / 100 ) ( 100 ) = 30% FALL 70 UP TO 100 ( ( 70 + 30 ) / 70 )( 100%) = ( 130 / 70 ) ( 100 ) = 185% RISE GIGANTIC % RISE TO RETURN TO START

The remaining principles are, that when you are no longer useful…you die. They call them “useless eaters” and they murder them.

Except it doesnt have to, and the US specifically is a mixed economy, not strictly capitalist.

Capitalism has been "late stage" for over 100 years. It ain't collapsing bud

Free market capitalism is the default and will always exist.

cyka, коммунисты и сюда добрались, может сначала дашь людям туалетку и возможность посрать без видеокамеры в собственной квартиры (ах да, она же общая), или может возможность купить что-то кроме картошки не стоя 5 часов в очереди, а потом уже будешь про прогресс затирать?

@@john_lemon4205 В каком из советских туалетов видеокамера стояла? В СССР на 89 год только ~9 процентов проживало в коммуналках с общагами. Ну и большую часть истории СССР люди не стояли в многочасовых очередях за картоплей и т.д, иначе бы СССР 74 года не прожил.

@Max Avdyunin What power did capitalism use to domesticate you so well?

@@user-pk9tz7ue5v Basic economics and life in a post-communist country.

Doesn't fairly depict the capitalist views? 😃 yeah, something we should all definitely keep in mind. Thanks.

@@michaelmappin1830 LOL

It’s fortunate that Marx’s predictions were completely incorrect. Wages have been increasing in inflation adjusted dollars for decades. Unless the world economic forum gets their way, everyone will still have private property, and won’t have to live in the pods, eat the bugs, and own nothing.

They are presenting the capitalists doing nothing to obtain value. When was the last time you saw a successful capitalist like that? The concept is outdated at best

@@victorjre Every billionaire

@@victorjre doesn't matter they are still exploiting people.

@@rationalism_communism Yeah, no, they don't. We live in a regime that high commitment returns high income. I like good quality of live for everybody, but better for those that have a higher goal.

@@victorjre um yes they do exploit people. what creates value is labour not "commitment"

If you really want your students to know communism, you should have them read The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

@@tomjensen8749 excellent suggestion! I added it to my reading list

Be careful with this. Marxism is not a workable economic theory. It's not possible for civilization to succeed using Marx theory and no civilization has ever been able to stick to these principles. That's why the communists will say that true communism has never been tried when people point to the 100% failure rate. What Marxist theory works for is to convince people to work towards revolution. That's the only thing it has ever been successfully used for. It is a means to overthrow existing systems and usher in the communist utopia, however the utopia never manifests. The story is always the same. Marxist revolution, communist regime installed, millions of people die, civilization crumbles. This is the story time after time.

I had to read the first few chapters of Capital at least 4 times.

Marxism is communists and it's garbage to me capitalism is the way mix it a little its graetes

Capitalism has made every nation rich.

Capitalism is the reason you have that phone with apps on it and now you can watch RU-vid with 4g speeds.

@@7404836 Yeah I'm glad somebody has finally replied to this after such a long time. Don't get me wrong. What you've said is just considered to be the fact by me. I didn't ask that question in the comment section to express any kind of favor of Marxism. It's just that I've seen a lot of people, university professors, students and citizens from some commie dictator country, with leftie ideology using theories explained in this video to support Marxism.

I believe Marxism provides a useful method of economic analysis. I don't agree with everything Marx says, but I think there are a lot of helpful insights. How about you? Do you see any value in the Marxist worldview?

They're called worker run co-ops. Some do ok, some fail. It turns out "capitalists" are much better at organizing production

@@aidanaldrich7795 that's been a issue, the problem of richer or more well funded coops will almost always do better than 100% organic coops, but either way coops sound like a excellent idea, maybe some kind of hybrid variant needs to be done?

Not well. It was called the Soviet Union.

rexamaine the whole capitalist / government / worker economy thing We can doe better than capitalism. Share the wealth, we all have to eat If not , your few remaining workers just may not come in to work screw us and we screw you no jobs = no spending = lower profits (we have to live on the small value placed on labor) 1930s crash coming soon, FED has no more amo, Just pray the dollar can stand up. Millions have no job. US labor costs have been stripped to the bone for the last 40 years. FLAT WAGE GROWTH The history of income DISTRIBUTION has always been political. The rich make all the rules. salary taxes laws laws enforced transparency accountability health insurance educational opportunity

@@jamesmorton7881 so the people own everything but the government controls everything, so crony capitalism just finds a new medium in the government and people like me are shut out of any opportunity to be anything but a laborer who works for the government for free... kinda sounds like nationalized slave labor to me

@Geoffrey Campbell you just described capitalism twice. The beautiful free market you envision in the first example leads inevitably to the second example as firms tend towards monopoly and exert their power on governments to continue shoring up their margins.

moorskiano . Can anyone translate that last comment?

Oh ffs your wage is not only the amount that you need to survive. Wages in reality are high enough to save money and buy your own.

@@ExPwner What a disgusting lie this is. Anyone working at minimum wage would tell you that's not true. Also, before you even say "only high-school kids work minimum wage", why is McDonald's open during school hours?

@@TheHauntedKiwi it is not a lie. What you just said is.

@@TheHauntedKiwi don’t eat that garbage. It’s poison.

And that means they'll always have to expand ,go local, go national, go international than end up with a near monopoly that can afford to exploit without risks, maybe even use some surplus value to give to politicians so they protect the system you rely on for your profit, that you won't even ever need to live

lmao risk time and money by not doing shit ? gtfoh, theyre parasites and need to be treated as such

@@dialectixemcee2428 I’m assuming you are talking about investors? If you’re talking about business owners, you clearly have no understanding of operating a business

@@apolloxv8820 you obviously have no clue what you're talking about, capitalists are parasitic lazy scum, capitalism a virus to wipe out

This was mentioned in the video. It is reasonable for employees to own the means of production and allocate additional wealth for investment in expanding their “corporation”.

Because that's kind of obvious, isn't it? He made a risk to invest and make jobs, but that one risk should not entitle him to commit labour theft

@@jared1964 how is it theft if he does pay the person doing the labor? The capitalist risked alot more to create the means of production, the laborer simple got hired and works. The laborer can simply get another job if the capitalists means of production fails to create value.

@@rezneps He did none of the work and you're making up a fantasy scenario where he took risk. One where LLCs and bankruptcy law is not written by capitalists.

Workers can take some risk and start their own business and keep all the profits for themselves. It is so simple and is practically guaranteed. No small business ever went under and cost the owner heart ache and financial loss. Funny though…workers still get paid. I mean, why work 8 hrs a day as an employee 5 days a week when you could work 15hrs a day 7 days a week and still risk the whole thing not working out?

Oof

Do it and you’ll come to understand how almost every aspect of our lives is affected by our capitalist conditioning. (From our family life to our work life)

@@Astro.98 I've read the communist manifesto. Pretty interesting read and I think marx and engels have accurate diagnosis but their solutions are borderline dumb especially with what we know about human nature. Basically what you would predict would happen with their solutions has happened every time. A lot of people say "communism is a good idea that hasn't been implemented correctly" when in reality it's a stupid system that has worked as expected every time.

555salt human nature is what the conditions of society make it. Primitive humans originally lived in communes where all provided for each other, communism.

Instead of doing that, acquire a skill that is demanded by today's market, it will help you a lot more than feeling depressed at why your country is not a communist one.

U wish

CEOs and Investors (owners) aren't the same thing. (i don't see one but still) even if CEOs work more than workers, how much they work more than them?? Is it more enough to be calling the income disparity justice? I don't think so.

Here's the simplest way I can explain it. How much harder do you possibly think they are working? 1.5 times? Twice? Hell ten times? IF that were true (keep in mind I'm not currently debating if they do or not), they should be making proportionally more. Twice as much compensation for twice as much labour. But as it turns out, modern capitalist economics do not support this model, and this is super easy to prove. Think about it, if every worker was equally compensated for their work, there would be no jobs more sought after than others, people would just choose the best fit for them. Lots of people want to be CEOs, but if their income was fixed to the actual labour they put in, how many still would? Workaholics, control freaks, creatives maybe, but the majority would switch their focus as they'd miss out on the unequal proportion of earnings given to CEOs. If all jobs were compensated equally for the amount of work put in, people would choose jobs best suited for their life, and there would be significantly less demand for jobs which are typically unfairly compensated for. Now, I don't personally agree that CEOs work just as hard, having worked predominantly in small offices were the CEO was everyone's boss and seeing how rarely they do even the minimum job requirements without board pressure, but regardless of my opinion, they're not possibly working so hard that the difference in earnings between CEO and their lowest paid employee, and thus are earning more than their fair share at the expense of their workers: exploitation. As for owners, that’s... not a job title. It's not a job, you can be an owner but that title isn't a job title as it implies no labour. Shareholders are owners, at most they go to a meeting and vote occasionally, not a job. Sometimes the CEO is the owner, their job is to be CEO. Simply owning part of a company does not imply the input of any labour and therefore does not warrant (on its own) any income.

@@raininghail4049 that is non-sequitur since value is not solely from labor and compensation should not only go to labor.

If this were true they wouldn't be able to do it from their multiple yachts and vacation homes.

Who makes the surplus? Workers who are exploited.

@@leoziman8689 wrong it the buyer actually with the buyer you have no job go try running a business

@@leoziman8689 workers are not exploited or producing a surplus. Read Bohm Bawerk.

@@joshuaoverlord5327 workers are also the buyers

that's literally capitalism. that's what he just said.

which makes what he said all the more ironic.

The most successful workers are the ones who create new means of production (like mobile phones). They are called "greedy capitalists" by state rulers, who bribe people to get elected. Their forced redistribution reduces the means of production available, while putting money in their own pockets. See how these rulers treat those who seek freedom: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sO-n-fqcV70.html

What would be your opinion about non-capitalist productive enterprises, such as worker-owned cooperatives?

@@JimiSol I think worker-owned cooperatives can work under certain constraints. New Harmony was a failure, but the leadership structure wasn't the best. Voluntary cooperation is key, and there are many examples of this.

This is a good discussion point, one of many about the importance of liberty of capitalism. Kind of shocking that this clever animation is easily portraying Marxism as a beneficial method to adopt. Very biased perspective of Marxism.

@@wcbscout thanks for your remarks

No, he could not. He would simply lower the wages or shift his capital into another venture. The idea that capital does anything useful or necessary in society is laughable

As far as labor makes things valuable. Things must have an inherent worth or use such as shoes (protecting our feet) and they must not be readily available for free (like air). Now as much as it would be awesome to get shoes for free, they take labor to make. The more high quality the shoe the more labor. We do not consider your crayon drawings valuable because not only did they not take labor but they are have inherent use value. (They are not fun to look at) if you put more labor into them (providing you have some drawing ability) they would have worth. But you have to also remember that there aren’t a million of your drawings. And there a rent because it takes time for you to make them. Labor doesn’t always make something valuable. Putting labor I useful things does. And in a capitalist system people have no other option but to trade things that they have for that useful thing you made. There is no reward for putting high amounts of labor into things in a communist system.

Under communism there is no government.

Speaking what?

1. Primitive Accumulation 2. Those are Petty Bourgeoisies, not Bourgeoisies. A Petty Bourgeoisie cannot become a Bourgeoisie with his own money. 3. Working ≠ working for commodity production. Laborators work for commodity production, and Bourgeoisies work for regulating production. However, the "work" of regulating production comes with power of domination of labor, which is the true point that Marxism demonstrates. 4. The power mentioned above is called the Capitalist. Capitalist is not money, it's power. So even if someone get a bank loan or investments, he didn't become a Bourgeoisie because essentially he do still not own the power. As mentioned above, he's just a Petty Bourgeoisies though. 5. Prices are set by the market with Nash Equilibrium, and the Nash Equilibrium is acheved by the Perfect Competition between every bussiness owners and every buyers. 6. The Great Depression 7. Primitive Accumulation had always been immoral. Social movements never considers moral. Is it moral that Louis XVI got beheaded? Is it moral that Robert Cromwell abolish the thrones of British Royal? 8. You have already given me the answer -- Hiring, but business man as employees and workers as employers.

@@BalthildIresYume Thanks for awnsering, since most of this things are never pointed out by marxists. However, it doesn't seems logical mostly because Marx didn't saw technology comming, that's why all his theory doesn't apply to nowadays. I'll try to bring this to reality instead of theory, because I don't think debate can come to anything if we just name authorities and don't explain how things actually work, sadly, this will make my awnser really long. 1) Primitive Accumulation as I understand in marxist views means the massive capital that was once made from things like slavery, colonization, etc, and as it grew it was inherited by following generations leading to nowadays "great capitalist" that no longer work and just sit tight and watch their fortune grow, right?. There are some critiques to that point of view: A) it's veracity and B) does this work good for the world and C) what to do about it?. A) If you watch the top 1% of the richest people on earth you will see that in the span of one decade all the names changes and not for sons and daughters but for new bussiness people. Some of them didn't even have a dime in their youth, as I can cite some examples we all know as Gates, Jobs, Bezos and Zuckerberg. So how come they are not always the same families?. Also, what happens if the owners of such capital take bad decisions, as we have seen throughout history. They go broke. And if they keep taking good decisions, that means they are giving the consumers what they wan't at a competent level, so isn't that a good thing? (that's what I meant with work in B)). C) The marxist awnser was one of the bloodiest disasters in human history, so I wouldn't rush to change it for the first idea that comes by 2) Petty Burgeoises: So to find common ground, you do believe that a proletarian can turn into a "petty bourgeoisies". Do millionaires enter the cathegory of this petty bourgeoisies? Because there is a great distance between a few millions and being the "all rulling capitalist" that marxism critizeses. If you say yes, then are you saying that the proletarian can turn into a millionare? even if it's just a few millions, it doesn't sound that bad. If you say that the proletarian can't turn into a millionaire then we all know that's a lie. I don't even need to mention the Gates, Jobs, Bezos or Zuckerberg here, so I guess you wouldn't deny that a proletarian can turn into a millionaire. As I said before, that doesn't sound bad. I guess the marxist critique is that at some point you need the "all rulling capitalists" to give you capital to grow, and in such exchange, they are exploiting you with the Primitive Accumulation that they just inherit so they don't even work and are still in power forever... but that is not how it works. First of all, most of the richest people's parents or grandparents werent even rich, as the people I mention before. Second, when the great capitalists give capital they are investing. Investing can go wrong if you don't study the opportunity (wich is actually a really hard work and takes a lot of knowledge and still you're only reducing the risk, not eliminating it). That's how the richest people go broke. And third, if I have a few millions (or less in the case that doesn't qualify as petty burgeoisies) and you give me capital wich gives me the oportunity to become a millionare (even beyond a few millions)... it's hard to see that as a scam, it looks more like a mutual benefit, wich is actually what the market is about. 3) Not sure if understanding your point, but I guess you mean that mostly, the marxist critique focus on commodities as in "the owner of the mine/field doesn't do anything and exploits the worker to get massive income as the worker gets a really low income" leaving outside of the critique pretty much the rest of the market wich is massive and keeps growing. But there are a few problems even with the commodities analisis. A) A lot of the comodities changes, for example, lithium/uranium wasn't useful in the 7th century, so if someone buys a lithium mine get the chances are the money doesn't come from Primitive Accumulation, someone that actually make his way from proletarian to millionaire as I explained in the point 2) can buy a lithium mine. People also where poor and found oil/uranium in their own field. B) The owner of the field/mine, even if it does come from Primitive Accumulation, still has to obey the market laws. He will have competence that will take him out if he doesn't administrate properly, reduce his income and gets the best human capital. So it's not just power, there are natural laws to it. C) The commodities worker still doesn't just get "barely enough to eat". That's just a 1800's view, as most marxist views. They actually get paid pretty well, mostly because to work in a field/mine you have to learn to use machinery at least, wich is not something anyone can offer and that allows the worker to ask for more. D) Even in capitalism it could be understanded that commodities, or means of production that comes from natural resources as fields, mines, sea, etc should pay big taxes, because they are exploiting natural resources that belong to a country, wich of course the state should use to provide the rest of the people, so there is a fair share of socialism for such markets, even in capitalism. That's something I would agree to apply 4) So this pretty much explains my questions in the 2) point. You would say that a proletarian can turn into a lower tier millionare (or Petty Bourgeoisies) by a loan or financiation. What stops him from keep growing to aquire a massive fortune and actually becoming a bourgeoisies and finance other people too. The rich people I mention before sure don't classify as Petty Bourgeoises (maybe because to be one you also have to own commodity production, and that's not that people's bussiness is about) and still those people went from lower class to massive wealth. Also, what's so bad about being a petty burgeoisies?. And even if you don't conform with the petty part, I would like the idea to go from lower millionare to massive wealth through external financiation 5) Isn't the concept of Perfect Competition what I mentioned in my point?. Isn't that good? 6) Primitive Accumulation is inmoral, as every socialists experiment ever tried, and inmorality breads failure and misery. But I would say that Primitive Accumulation is almost non-existing in today's market, as I sayd in 1). 7) A bussiness ruled by the workers is a bussiness model within capitalism, it's called cooperative bussiness (I'm not sure how it's called in english). It exists, but it's pretty much a bad idea since it's decisions are based on ad populum, the guy that cleans the toilets doesn't understand how to manage the bussiness so his vote is useless. Also, if the workers soon finds out that they don't have a salary and their income fluctuates when the bussiness isn't doing good, wich is what happens to the bussiness owner in the other model of bussiness. And if some of the workers are not good or fucks it up everyone pays for it. Also this is something that can happen inside capitalism, but when everything in a country takes this model, who is going to create new industries, and what's even less conceivable, who is going to innovate into new bussiness?

@@curseanalyst have you read das capital? I remember Marx talk many about what you said in his book

You've clearly never bothered to answer any of these questions yourself. You're just throwing a bunch of objections out there, most of which are strawmen, and hoping that they stick to some gullible person reading this. You can't get around the basic point that people are getting paid less than the value of their work, and no capitalist would hire any worker if that wasn't the case, doesn't matter what other distractions you can bring up about how often they see their families or whatever, the worker sees their families a lot less and lives a much worse life or else again, no one would want to be a capitalist. That and capitalism has created absolute misery which is really the main point aside from any philosophical moral issues with it.

@@curseanalyst First of all, these things are mostly pointed out by Marx/Engels/Lenin. Marx do see technology evolving too, yet he had already pointed out the decisive role of productivity progress. 1. The primitive accumulation is the answer of your assertion that "It never tells you where the means of production actually came from." Do not get off-topic. A. The analysis object is class, a faction in the society as a whole, not the individuals in the class. No matter how many times those individuals was replaced, the class ruling the society and controlling the labor of production does not change overall. B. Hangmans of the Tsar, generals of the Nazi, dealers of the African slave trading... they're also a kind of "work". If you think getting incomes by these "work" is just, right and fair... then I have nothing to say. C. It's not. Let me cite Mark Twains' comment on the French Revolution: > THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror-that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves. 2. You have totally disregarded the point. I've emphasized in the lase reply many times: the Capital is NOT MONEY, it is POWER. The relationship between money and power has described in [Das Kapital] (Specifically, in Vol.2 Part.2 [The Turnover of Capital]). Imagine what you're saying if you replace the subjects in your sentences to "King", "authoritarian", etc. -- you're like saying if anyone comes form the people could be a minister and rule the state (selected by extremely strict conditions with pitiful chance), then the state is democracy, regardless whether the domination of the monarch and ministers obeys the will of the people. And you even say it's "mutual benefit", just because rulers have given some chance to the people. Ancient China actually have a system abovementioned, however, it's still a kind of dictatorship. I remember there have been someone (maybe a feminist?) that proposed a term "Structural Contradiction" to criticize such arguments. The conflict is determined by the structure of the society, not specific individuals. 3. No. I was not saying "Bourgeoisies do not work". I was saying the division of work between two classes leads to the domination of one class to another. Actually, I agree that Bourgeoisies works hard too. However, the Bourbon family and the Tsars also works hard too, aren't they? Moreover, the relations between Bourgeoisie class and specific Bourgeoisies has been described in section 1.A. 4. See section 2. 5. It sounds good, but only sounds good. I have had think you know the concept of Nash Equilibrium, so I don't explain it -- it's not a thing as good as you first look. Nash Equilibrium may leads to disastrous consequences, for example, bad money drives out good money. When the sellers (Laborators) are much more than buyers (Bourgeoisies), says, when there're numbers of unemployed, the equilibrium is greatly benefit to buyers, and buyers de facto. take control over the market. Therefore, Marx hove already concluded that if Bourgeoisies want to keep their position, they must maintain the rate of population reproduction at a level that keeps at least half of the unemployed in the society (in [Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844]), and this is done though the state machine. 6. See section 1.C. Today's market are also immoral if you must view it from a moral aspect, only that its immoral spreads out over the time and so that it's hard to noticed, but when you sum them, you could see it's much more immoral than what Soviet states did. -- But again, it's meaningless to talk about moral on social movements, otherwise the Europe should still dictated by monarchs, and the America should still be a colony of Britain. 7. It's called the collective ownership in Socialism. It's bad only when it exists inside a Capitalism society. In fact, it runs well in a Socialism society. For example, the Angang Constitution is one of the most excellent instance of collective ownership factories (of course, only before the Chinese government turns to revisionism at 1977). This system cannot run well under Capitalism, because of the Nash Equilibrium.

“Buhhh Marx was wrong because (argument Marx refutes multiple times in the first chapters of Capital)”

Capital holds less risk than labor, since the costs of failure are first born by the workers in the form of layoffs

@@TheHauntedKiwi wrong

Jordan Peterson doesn't understand Marxism

@@liambishop9888 why would you say that?

Can you send me some good video recommendations where he goes in-depth into the topic?

​@@tomjensen8749 he never read marx or any communist books he just spatting shit without doing any research

@@loona_mew here’s Jordan Peterson talking about what he learned from reading the communist manifesto. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-j_MXSE3wUT4.html

What fundamentals of capitalism does it leave out? Why isn't Marxism the solution? Why isn't this a viable way forward? As it stands, your comment is a nothingburger.

@@user-hv7cj3yb7u I'll answer your question. Capitalism for one gives any person the opportunity to prosper with deduction and capital for starting a business. Example you save 10k working for someone then turn around with the money you saved to start your own business, you are the only person working that business for years. You are getting old so you start hiring people to work the business with you and the money you've been making off that business that you've worked by yourself for years, you turn that money into investing it into the business because you knew you wanted to expand when you get older. So everything you've worked for you've put into that business, now you stay hiring people to work for you and your company is expanding. Would you want to share all your profits with your workers if they didn't help you establish the business plan the work into the business like you, the business falls on your shoulders and the workers don't have that burden. Marxism will never work. If I started a business from scratch and worked that business for years and I have a family and kids, I'm leaving the business to my kids, why should the workers who invested no money no hardship get to split the business and get the business, doesn't make sense does it.

@@user-hv7cj3yb7u Marxist want all the profit but do not want to take any risk. Marxist also fail to understand the value of vision, drive, understanding complex systems, etc.

Most serious marxists are quite familiar with Smith, Friedman and everyone in between. The objections raised by neoliberal ideologues (Hayek, Mises, Friedman) are intellectually lazy and usually mystical and unfalsifiable, and have been rigorously addressed in marxist studies. Classical economics was pretty good up through Ricardo, and marxists refer to it often and in detail. Check out Michael Hudson on RU-vid for an example of this.

If you’re a business owner who has to work you’re only a petit bourgeoisie. In other words you’re standing within the capitalist class is precarious and the larger corporations within your industry will undercut you due to economies of scale and you will return to being a proletariat.

​@@imom007 Yeah, only that most time people don't go down, they go up. The richest people in the world started with an idea in their basement and dedicated their life to make it grow. And even now they are the richest people, they still work pretty much 24/7. Besos, Gates, Jobs, etc, everyone started for scratch. This stupid idea of resentment and envy is just an excuse for going ape and stealing shit from people who work all their life without having to do any self-critique or self-improvement and blaming others for your problems.

@@imom007 that may be true in marxists theory but its is not true in practice with the real world.

You guys know…you don’t have to buy products made by companies that you don’t like. Unlike communism, where you wouldn’t have that luxury.

Plenty! The books actually written by Karl Marx (except for the Manifesto) are quite long, dense, and difficult to understand. So I tend to recommend works by other Marxist thinkers. I think the pamphlet titled 'Wage Labour and Capital' by Frederick Engels I think is a great place to start. Here is a link to read it online: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm

You’re talking to kids, they haven’t done anything yet. Socialists have always targeted youth, intellectuals, and minorities to spark revolution. The issue is there will always be have and have-not groups. We are tribal creatures, so... world peace is not possible. The great thing about capitalism, is that it literally ushered in the age of prosperity, but it does have downfalls. These downfalls were what Marx saw, and he said would cause the downfall of capitalism. History has proven him wrong several times because he did not consider an additional player, the state. We can have a functioning capitalist society, with social programs to protect the masses. Example: Sweden is a capitalist economy with strong emphasis on social protection and benefits. We can not have a functional society with communism because it requires central power to enforce the rules. Example: all socialist country’s. The thing is, it’s about balance. The liberal mind is high in openness, but low in conscientiousness. They make great entrepreneurs, but are horrible managers. The conservative mind is high in conscientiousness, but low in openness. They use information and experience to process order, but are rarely good an innovation. Liberals have used conservatives for decades to identify risks to their innovation. When I say liberal, I don’t mean progressive. Progressives are against any collaboration.

Andrew Koy - you are completely right they do take advantage of our youth. I’m a bit bummed I didn’t catch it, thank you! I agree, every system has its flaws, some more than others. In the states we are capitalist and have adapted semi socialist programs. I can see that maybe adapting a few more policies like Sweden and keeping an open mind could help today’s economy. You bring up several good points and worth looking into.

If you’re owning a business and working at the same time you’re part of the petit bourgeoisie (little capitalist). That means you are susceptible to being outbid by larger monopoly corporations, and will return to being a proletariat.

"You also have the right to look for what wage fits your needs." That's dubious.. there's some difference, depending your capability, location, and place in society, that may only be within a range of subsistence wages, and... marginally higher/lower subsistence wages. With hard work, you're still only getting subsistence wages, and not able to save your way out of it.

@@Koitus36 Not talking to a kid here; I'm in my 30s. In the US, Progressive policy is so poorly represented that social protections barely exist, and are most often hobbled by being underfunded deliberately, or having loopholes for exploitation to make an example out of them. 40% of the population here is fighting over a combined 0.3% of the total national wealth, and servile to any job they can get.. if you want to call that prosperous, I'd beg to differ; I call that serfdom. Any who misses 3 days of food is a revolutionary in the making. One blown tire, medical expense, even a higher than average electric bill, and it can all fall apart. Many jobs offer wages that still cannot pay for basic subsistence (Walmart for example, which if you're in a small town with no college, might be the best option), and still qualify the worker for food stamps.. yet we cut food stamps.. all in spite of these companies making record profit and productivity margins. Still, people call for lowering regulations on these businesses, and cutting social programs. With this stark disparity in quality of life, and tonedeaf social Darwinist fascination for squeezing the poor harder, the system creates it's own radicalization by being so sociopathic and shameless in it's greed. For anyone below the middle to upper middle class, and hopelessly stuck there, it's a very different world.. one that seem in every respect, indistinguishable from chattel slavery. Unless you get a lucky break, or cut some serious legal corners (which many eventually do,) your life is coerced into desperately accepting whatever any company you can find, says it is. At that point, knowing you have Zero bargaining power, it's in the company's best interests, to keep you like that.

Holodomor.

Risk is an arbitrary concept. And yet, it still has nothing on the amount of work the workers put in.

@@Fuar11 yes, but the amount of work shouldn't matter... We don't live in a prison! The only thing that should matter is how we work! In capitalist countries you can choose how much to work by choosing your job, and you can work less by investing the money you produced and living off the profit. Capitalism is freedom, communism is a prison.

@@giovanni8943 You don't choose how much you work under capitalism because you don't own the means of production. Somebody else does and you work for them. Sure you can choose your job, but not many people have a choice. And even then, your employer dictates your hours and your pay. That doesn't sound like freedom to me, where 2/3's of your waking day nearly every day is spent working for somebody else.

@@Fuar11 maaan if the state owns the means of production you can't choose, if a single person owns them you can just tell him how much time you want to work and he tells you how much he is gonna pay you. You choose, you can work 3 hours a week for 19 different companies or just found your company and make money by yourself... Becoming rich in capitalism is easy, the only obstacle is the government! Don't ruin the others life just because you don't like yours, just try to improve your income slowly, and one day you will be rich. And in case you want to eliminate poverty you shouldn't even think about the rich, because they are not creating poverty, it's the state that creates poverty if it doesn't introduce a minimum wage law!

@@giovanni8943 Regardless of whether one person or the state owns the means of production; they will not let you choose how long you work. Because an employers sole goal is maximizing profit and minimizing costs. If they let you choose how long to work (which they don't in most cases) then they would be letting workers choose to work less (obviously) which limits productivity (and therefore production) which limits overall profit growth in the long run. They want to work workers as much as possible by paying them as little as possible (minimizing costs, of which wages accumulates the most cost). That is what capitalism is all about. Creating a product or service with value which is sold for revenue, which minus the costs equals profit. Profit for shareholders. Under an anarcho communist society, there is no private ownership OR state ownership of the means of production. Which means the yield of that production goes straight to the workers who deserve it. Not the guys at the top who sit around all day not doing any work and just tell others what to do. They don't deserve the surplus value, we the workers do.

when china bought your land and property i hope you can still be proud capitalist.

@@epsilonxvi5675 which land was bought and china is the last step of Marxism just look at Russia