J P give case studies and examples, those take up a hell lot of word count

Same😂

OMG who doing this now???? I need examples though ☺ asap

OMG who doing this now???? I need examples though ☺ asap

@@capitalistsocietybots9976 Here

^^^^^^^

totally agreed, alienation and exploitation are parts of capitalism tighten together like flesh and bones and impossible to separate from each other, only its forms are changing from time to time due to new circumstances

+Cipi SixZeroFour . I'm not a Marxist, but you characterizations here are clearly untrue for both capitalism and Marxism. You don't just work "if you want to" under capitalism. Necessity compels working for an income, and that necessity is backed up by the rules of the system, not simply natural inevitability. All systems are likely to require people working in jobs they don't love to death, one way or another. Most people under capitalism hate their jobs. This is hardly "choosing the job you want", except in the most minimal sense of not being forced to work as job at the end of a gun, which is a shoddy conception of freedom. There are many other forms of structural compulsion within capitalism that prevent people doing to jobs they want to do, and compel them to stay in jobs they hate. Also, the idea that people must work particular jobs at the direction of the state, without options, is not endemic to Marxism. Even in the Communist Manifesto, Marx says the exact opposite. The authoritarianism of 20th century officially socialist states were hardly representative of the entire tradition of Marxist thought, and some of their largest detractors have been Marxists.

Justin Mueller I have already lived under Communism. Capitalism beats Communism every time. No contest. The shittiest jobs are under Communism not under Capitalism. Under Capitalism you have what job you want, under Communism your job is what the Communist party wants for you. Only in Capitalism you get to choose since only unde Capitalism you're free. And under Capitalism work is not mandatory since you have the welfare state or you can inherit your parents business.

Cipi SixZeroFour Where did you live in?

100% spot on

I'm starting to lose trust in the bbc, what do I watch instead?

@@harrymason8475 any and all but try understand why differing news sources may lie to you. There's no such thing as a 100% trustworthy source

This only goes over Marx and his observations during his lifetime, whether this operates similarly today doesn't necessarily matter in an very brief historical presentation. Everything doesn't have to be Doomer propaganda ;) For an another look at Marxism, capitalism, consumerist society and it's progression I recommend The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord. It was written in 1967 but it still has applicable concepts today.

@@harrymason8475 Novara Media

it is good

Too bad he was weak and covered in boils and died never having worked a day in his life😎

@@JaMeshuggah He's done significant work for sociology by writing. When will you contribute to future thinkers for years to come

@@fairy5668 when I get finish my bullet collection

@@JaMeshuggah You mean like murder?

What era would you like to trade with?

Peter Enns Past stays in the past and all we can hope for is a better future as that’s what tomorrow should mean for everyone and this dystopian and cynical way of living it’s not it

@@VinsLeMans Today is dystopian and cynical then? When was better? Where was better?

@@crkcrk702 this is social-darwinism, from the looks of it.

@@burkean Yes, all human history up to the industrial era.

For billions of people today, things are WORSE!

Gareth Ham Nothing is WORSE today than it was 100 years ago, Gareth. NOTHING.

I do realise the population of today is much higher, but even still, do you realise just how many people are dying every year due to 'structural violence'?

***** Firstly, quoting Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." I would love to see some statistical evidence to back up your claim that less people are starving today than ever before in history. Finally, you clearly don't understand the concept of Structural Violence. The actions of individuals and groups against others in this world may be a symptom of structural violence, but that is not what structural violence is, in and of itself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

***** So you agree with the classification of abject poverty those statistics are based off?

+7NatioN Marx's Eurocentrism on display.. you're taking that from a Marxist btw

@@MasonDeanSteinerRedScare -- You're the flukeman, aren't you?

Nice! Thanks Comrade!

Yes, the eloquent perfection of equity always attracts crapitalism and imperialism's apologists and lackeys.

More true today than ever

Its not from das kapital, it's from the 1844 manuscripts, I read it in german but im pretty Sure that its from there. The part when he talked about alientation Was just perfect

But how is a worker (employers can be workers too) actually 'alienated' from the products of their labor?

​@@lochnessmunster1189I think some of their stuff or services can't be bought unless you've got a ton of money. Like, let's say you build a car at the factory, but you're broke and can't afford to buy it. In a capitalist society, public transportation isn't really a thing.

@@Kuonlin It is in many countries, the lack of public transportation is not an aspect of capitalist society.

There is a saying "don't take it personal". I could care less if I could not afford the services or labour I was providing. It's all ego and status. If I could figure out a way to sell it make shit for wealthy people to throw their money at then that is slightly satisfactory, even humorous.

Ulezim do you think factory manufacturing isn't still happening today? where you do think all these mass produced goods are coming from? this is a problem if consumers don't want to acknowledge/aren't aware where their clothes and shoes and whatever else are coming from

maws francis I'm not sure that's what Ulezim meant. It is clearly a simple way to explain what happened then and it definitely, to me at least, shows up the problems with countries such as China now days.

@Reggie Cyde Have you read any bit of Marx? I assure you that he ain't no dummie lol, anyone who can get through,understand and transcribe Hegel isn't stupid. You should probably read Wage Labor,the communist manifesto,or Critique of the Gotha program if you want to get into Marx's work because the rest are really long(First volume of Kapital is over 1000 pages and in depth)

@Reggie Cyde lmao for you

Chong! Jojun! Balsa! Marx was a lazy, jobless bourgeois twat that mooched off his friends and never worked a hard day in his life. He was not a genius, all his ideas FAILED LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED. Stop being politically, economically, and historically illiterate. Stop watching the BBC as well, they’re nothing more than tax payer funded Regressive Leftist propaganda that is doing nothing to benefit your already incredibly small and ill informed mind.

The rights we have today came from LIBERALISM, not Marxism, you absolute fucking dunce. The idea of Natural Rights comes from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Locke is known for his statement that individuals have a right to "Life, Liberty, and Property" and his belief that the natural right to property is derived from labor. This is derived from the idea of self ownership: your body is your property, and thus you are entitled to the fruits of your labour. Locke's theory of natural rights has influenced many political documents, including the United States Declaration of Independence and the French National Constituent Assembly's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Do you know what Marx’s ideas did? They resulted in governments in the 20th Century which based themselves upon his ideas, which ended up with the deaths of over 100,000,000 people. That’s Marx’s legacy. Stop being an ignorant moron. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. Bad ideas that have never worked, DON’T WORK, and are BAD. Marx was a lazy fucking idiot with terrible ideas.

@Reggie Cyde Are you kidding? Where do you think unions came from? Workers rights? Aka things that keep you from being exploited by capitalists? Marx wrote as capitalism was beginning to flourish and take on its alienating quality in Europe, and yet Marx was able to see ahead and predict what capitalism would become. He was extraordinarily prescient. You claim such a model could never exist because of human motivation - clearly demonstrating that you have never read Marx. Our mindsets and values are influenced by capitalism because it is the dominant economic system. Primitive communism existed, as well as civilisations such as the Incan Empire which was currencyless and had equal distribution of resources - even a pension for the elderly and disabled.

"Owners" are not just people who sit at a desk with their tophats as money rolls in while they do nothing. Owners are management, marketing and other important functions of a business.

@@johniacino1364 Doing managing, marketing and performing other important functions of the business is all work. It is done by workers, and those workers should be compensated for the work that they do. They should not be compensated for the work other people do, just because of ownership. I don't think that's a difficult concept to grasp, but maybe you disagree.

The history of socialism has proven that this notion of worker-control of enterprises indeed is petty-bourgeois. It does not take into account the contradiction between the the base and superstructure, the contradiction between all of the competing enterprises nor the contradiction between labour and capital. It ignores the contradiction between the base and superstructure in that you cannot carry out full cultural revolutions while you also have markets in place, which increases individualism and kills empathy between the people of the society. Even if the enterprises are worker-controlled, they don't all belong to all workers. One person may be a part of one enterprise, which is competing with other enterprises. Then, the employees of those enterprises will be alienated from the former. This way, it produces and reproduces some of the most bourgeois cultural elements such as individualism and distrust for your fellow human, as long as there are markets. This will eventually lead to a restoration of capitalism. It ignores the contradiction between the competing enterprises in that it does not see that, in competition, some enterprises succeed, and others are ruined. This was a massive problem in the prime example of market-socialism: Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia, the enterprises were in open contradiction with one another, as per market-socialism. But it is contrary to dialectics to say that contradictions merely exist, in stopped time. These contradictions in question moved back and forth, with one enterprise getting more profits than the other, and eventually, one enterprise will succeed. But to merely say this is to be dishonest. It must also be mentioned, and even emphasised, that the other enterprise is ruined. It goes bankrupt. What happens when an enterprise goes bankrupt? All of its workers become unemployed, and because the Yugoslav state was largely in the service of the Yugoslav proletariat, it attempted to prevent the destitution and suffering of proletarians that comes with unemployment. But wherefrom did it get its funds? Well, it didn't have infinite money, so it had to take loans. From the International Monetary Fund. This way, the state of Yugoslavia got into massive debts that it couldn't pay off, and with that, destitution and suffering came anyway, which was one of if the most important factors which led to its collapse. There is no way to avoid this problem without abolishing markets. It ignores the contradiction between labour and capital in that the enterprises do need profits to grow and not be outcompeted, and to make profits, the enterprise needs to appropriate surplus value from their workers. This naturally creates a contradiction between the interests of the worker and the interests of the enterprise itself, between the labour and the capital of the enterprise. As was stated above, contradictions create movement, and in this case, that movement is the decrease and increase of wages, and the respective increase and decrease of profits. A worker under this system must choose between himself or the enterprise, between short-term success and long-term success, when deciding on the wage of the enterprise's employees together with their co-workers. The only resolution of this contradiction is the end of the existence of the enterprise, either by going bankrupt due to lack of profits or becoming a volunteer service due to there being no wages. Either way, the employees lose out, and either direction the contradiction moves that is not towards an equilibrium is a loss for the employees. Here we have criticised market-socialism and the notion of worker-control of enterprises, with the help of the recognition of the following contradictions: the contradiction between the base and superstructure, the contradiction between the individual enterprises and the contradiction between labour and capital. But a criticism is useless without another suggestion! What resolves the aforementioned contradictions? The first and second are resolved by the abolition of markets. The third is a more individual contradiction, and is resolved by the end of the existence of the enterprise or the end of the existence of competition between the enterprise in question and other enterprises, i.e., the abolition of markets. These all call for the abolition of markets. Then, what would replace markets? A democratically-run centrally-planned cyber-economy! I recommend Paul Cockshott's video-lectures on it. Check them out for more information. Thanks!

You are implying that the owner who has contributed with the start up of the business, has no contribution to the final product, which is incorrect

@@cv4809 No, I'm not. I think the owner should be compensate for his work. But not for his ownership.

But are you 'alienated'?

It’s been like that since the beginning of capitalism

@@lizzyfrizzle8986 True, true. It's actually sad to see that humans are actually stuck in the system, but are taught to belive that this system is progressing or are free.

@@The80sWolf_ well the only people who really believe that are people who are materially comfortable and secure. Which is a group that is growing smaller every day.

Better than state selected labor and bread lines.

@@Drako9823 So like whats happening in the western countries lol. Cope harder bro.

Jesus christ its only gotten worse after covid

anya marx get set goooooo

I think you got them switched

+Azen Kwed Part of alienation is conditioning people to act against their best interests.

Prosperity Gospel. 😂

Elexie Munyeneh what do you mean ?

Azen Kwed some of the poorest anericans("wage slaves") believe in "prosperity gospel." In other words, they sympathize with the rich(not themselves or the poor), and hope that one day they could be rich too. It takes good education to get did of that idea.

Elexie Munyeneh oh. ok. Yeah I know about that. The poor are convinced that, they are actually not "poor" or "proletarians" but rich-to-be, or wanna-be-millionnaires that are just currently inconvenienced.

Me when When

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's an Utopia, impossible to make it happen.

no one understands you

Portugal has one of the highest rates of inequity-they need more than this!

Conseguiu? Eu tava seriamente pensando em fazer uma dublagem do material (O risco é tomar processo de direito de copia 🤡)

@Hoang Long Nguyen revisionist state capitalism. Isn't Marx's fault. And I'm from the USA.

Fuck that, Marx can rot in hell for all the damage his ideology has done to the world.

​@@KnIf0rTITAN sorry that marx took away your big tiddies and make comic books gay

@@loona_mew I was thinking more about the 200 million plus your lover Marx managed to get killed with is fantasy bullshit ideology.

+Szaam I think she's been living and working in the UK for quite a while, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, it is a little odd but sounds nice.

And now she plays Thatcher 🙃

+Waznaa Bhagalee "It [work] fulfils our species essence" as he [Marx] put it.

Hey thanks dearie! 😊

It's also called market socialism i.e. a bunch of socialist systems (worker cooperatives) within a system with a capitalist mode of production (products produced to be sold for profit). If one wants to try and achieve such a system without a revolution, it is required that the bourgeoisie won't intervene. That's not going so well due to ever increasing limitations in crowdfunding, as an example. Not only this, a market socialist system, even when fully established, is not efficient in preparing against an inevitable attack from the western world. Such things require planning.

No, the solution, as Marx clearly understood, is not to own your own capitalist enterprise, but to abolish wage labor, money and market relations in a social revolution.

Russell*

That was state capitalism, smart feller.

@@kevinkeating4984 Yet you Socialists have no produced no alternative. I keep hearing that Real socialism has never been tried. However, why is no one 'trying it'? We have 172 years of no 'real socialism' after the Communist Manifesto was written. When do Socialists give up? That is a long period of failure to make Marxism even work. NO classless society, NO stateless Communism. I never to expect to see either of these forms of "Eden".

It was real socialism

Yes, it goes both ways. But Marxists literature seems to primarily focus on the alienation of the working class, perhaps because it is easier to see the effects of it.

You both raise valid points! Alienation does indeed affect both the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat (the workers), no doubt. Yet, Marx and most Marxists lean towards the working class (i.e., everyone who works for a living) because they face harsher impacts, primarily exploitation and dehumanisation, through capitalism. Though it's less conspicuous, the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class), despite their perceived 'control,' are often trapped in their own system, bound by capital and market demands. But let's not forget that it's this same system that sustains their privilege at the cost of the working class's hardship. Hence the emphasis.

Puts folders up during test because those who don't study copy answers. Becomes marxist

***** That guy got fuckin roasted. Good one m8.

This video is presenting an idea from a dead white dude... nothing about it was 'dressed up as scientific analysis.' Troll much?

Louis Cyfear once the analysis is logical it is scientific

Mohammed fawzi Yes but the it's only a theory.

And its logical on the other hand your comment which holds no argument

I think that's Russell Brand.