Agree!

And opening my eyes …… thank you for your comment. Miss jenny

If you think this makes sense get a little closer to these people. They have a long and consistent history of shooting useful idiots like you in the head. Just give it time, stupid. You’ll get Yezhoved yet, comrade!

You need to construe in terms of Hegelian dialectic.

Why waste your time? Of much greater use would be for you to read & translate Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

@@stephaneg.8623 Lol no

@@shutdownexecute3936 You realize it's only interesting to read Marx for historical reasons right? Same reasons someone would read Mein Kampf... it's to understand why people read it and why it made them do the terrible things they did... there's no actual value or truth to be found in Marx's writings...all of his rambling theories have been completely debunked either by economists or history. You can't fault Marx for thinking what he did 100 years ago, but to not realize 100 years later with the information you have today that it was all wrong is being willfully ignorant.

@@stephaneg.8623 None of it has been debunked, absolutely none of it, and if anything the passage of time since his death has only proven him right, more undeniably so with every passing day under capitalism. You don’t even *know* what “debunked” concepts you’re specifically referring to, because let’s be honest, you’ve never read Capital, and you’ve never read any other Marxist theory. I doubt you could accurately define socialism, let alone historical and dialectical materialism or the difference (and relationship) between socialism and communism. Before you compare Capital to Mein Kampf, try to actually read it. I don’t know a single working-class person who has managed to read through Capital and NOT see capitalism for what it truly is- inherently and fundamentally undemocratic. Socialism is democracy and democracy is socialism, but I’m sure you thought something more along the lines of “socialism is when the government does stuff,” “socialism is when welfare,” or “socialism is when no market.” Actually read the book before confidently passing judgement on it. That’s got to be the definition of unearned confidence.

@@shutdownexecute3936 All of it has been proven wrong. There isn't a single chapter that isn't wrong. His theory of value is clearly wrong, economists have proven that. His basic premise is wrong, his idea of "society under a capitalist mode of production" implies that it's an option...capitalism isn't an option, it's reality, it's how people survive and thrive. What do you get in a communist country? A few privileged leaders, and a while mass of starting people who use capitalism to at least survive. There's no choice, either you embrace it and everyone benefits, or you restrict it so only the marxist leaders benefit.

Give this man the means of production

Regretting that i dint saw this comment earlier... ☹️

It is in the description

Think of the concept of emergence. Each concept at each stage is broken down into opposites. These seem to be in contradiction along the lines of quality and quantity. However, as a process they lead to a new form (a unity) of both of those previous elements. Like h2O. This then possesses its OWN ‘unique’ features. And these features continually provide a feedback into the system as a whole. These feedback loops over time are governed by certain ‘laws’ or inherent features which guide their movement. Also, in terms of physical science. Physiology is not histology, histology is not anatomy, anatomy is not biology. Each has its own unit of analysis, but nevertheless a ‘common’ feature to all. However, they are not all governed by the same exact laws. They are context dependent. I don’t know if I helped you or confused you. Hahaha, sorry if I did

It's a form of analysis called dialectical materialism. The basic idea is that things are generally best understood in terms of their internal contradictions, as opposed to seeing them as something separate and static. What we see in this graph is how Marx exposes the internal contradiction of a concept, then he shows how that contradiction is resolved. What emerges from that is a new concept, which has internal contradictions of it's own. These are then exposed and resolved into a new concept again &c. Red Menace did an episode on Mao's On Contradiction which really helped me grasp this idea: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fpN9ZNyatb6XcXU.html

I mean sure, a specific type of labor (factory labor) is more valued in the US compared to china, hence more expensive and that sets the conditions. that's already a good insight. But isn't that value regime determined more by a lack of alternatives than a particular work ethic or history?

Eric Fromm also has done good work on this.

Deng took the risk because it was the only way for China to develop.. And he has been right so far.

@@annilator3000 Every socialist country allows private investment, no? China, DPRK, Vietnam, Cuba.. And didn't both Trotsky and Stalin advocate for foreign private investment in the USSR, in the mid to late 1920's?

@@neillholley5061 Kinda. Many socialist countries have. Marxism understands that capitalism is a stage of human societal development. Socialism is generally supposed to develop after a capitalist system has industrialised its society. Or, perhaps more broadly, transitioned the society away from a feudal system. However, most of these countries were semi-feudal backwaters where capitalism hadn't established itself properly. The DPRK can be an exception as when it gained independence it got the industrial base built up by Imperial Japan in Korea. To facilitate the transition to socialism, most of these countries attempted some form or another of capitalism, within a socialist framework, to build up the industrial/economic base. The Soviet Union, for example, established the New Economic Policy (NEP) after the devastation of the civil war. China accepted the Chinese domestic capitalists in the revolution, and later opened up the economy more but advocating that the market be contained like a bird in a cage. It's not that every socialist country allows private investment. Socialist countries develop their socialist systems, and want to reach a stage where the capitalist system is abolished, both internally and externally. But since each socialist country doesn't exist in isolation, in a closed system, in its own universe, the external conditions the internal and vice versa. It cannot simply completely abolish any vestiges of capital internally whenever it wants to. Socialist countries can be pragmatic and work with capital, or work against it depending on the general conditions it faces. Remember, most of the world is capitalist, and even hostile at times, so working with them is sometimes necessary.

@@pashico7082 Thanks. So capitalism will be abolished when class is abolished? And so abolishing class, creates socialism? And then abolishing exchange value, marks the end of socialism and the beginning of communism?

@@neillholley5061 Not exactly. First, "socialism" and "communism" should be defined. Socialism is a society where the means of production are publicly owned and controlled. In what way? There are many ways. It can be the directly controlled by the workers via a cooperative, or elected councils, or through a state, or whatever else you can think of. Generally, a country can be identified as socialist if it has established such an economy, but also probably more importantly a "dictatorship of the proletariat". No, it's not a literal dictatorship with a cartoon villain. Dictatorship in this sense simply means the class who controls the state. In a capitalist society, the state is controlled by the ruling class, the capitalist class, and is therefore called a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". In a socialist society, the working class, aka the proletariat, is the ruling class. HOWEVER, as you can see, there still are class distinctions. Class struggle continues in a socialist society. The proletarian state has to protect itself from regressing to capitalism and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, like what happened with the dissolution of the USSR. It can be said that class struggle is aggravated in socialism As for communism. It is a stateless, money-less, and classless society. Class is abolished in communism. As for exchange value, money is its common representation. It is important to note, however, that as socialism develops, the economy moves away from exchange value and puts greater emphasis on use value, therefore that transition starts in socialism, with its end likely being in communism, so you got that basically right. Please note that I don't have all the answers, and there are people who can explain such things way better than me. If you have discord, I recommend joining the server of The Deprogram and asking questions there.

Hi! We have tried to fix the audio for our Podcast from this event. Please check us out on Spotify/Itunes or regular RSS feed.

Subtitles seem to work for me using the KZfaq functionality

It was live when it was put up

Nor the definition if there is to be one

I've only read chap1 so i maybe wrong. What I understand is that you cannot really calculate abstract value. Smith and co devoted their study to calculating exchange value which Marx thought of as not worth it. Marx assigned "value" is something that is inherent in a commodity which comes into play in the exchange process as exchange value. Value is more fundamental than exchange value. Both are in the abstract

@@ppdashing what is ur age.. I just wanted to compare mine with of yours as we are reading first time the Capital...

​@@ppdashingThat's because the value we attach to a commodity is relative.

😂 beleza mano

Sure sure, that is why you see in most capitalist countries the rise in state and household debt, rise in the inequality, rise in the conflicts around the world under different "premises", massive lay-offs, elimination of social securities of workers, increases on immigrations in search of work and cheap labor forces, etc. Did I miss anything pal? All of that clearly indicates that his ideas do not map to reality, right....

what planet are you on