Criminally underviewed YT channel. Good stuff. Thank you

I have heard Communist Manifesto explained by many people, I would say this was the most simplified version of it. Thank you, Ellie!

I almost had a mental breakdown because I have an assignment on this and couldn't understand how or where to start. This video made the concept so easy to grasp! Thank you!

It's worth reading the document for yourself...with the intent to understand it, rather than the "I read it in 20 minutes and it's all garbage" nonsense that more than a few people push (at least one in this video's comments section. ~29 pages in 20 minutes says that the moron that claimed it was lying, and their other arguments likewise proved them to be dishonest parrots of propaganda). The summary in this video covers merely one facet of the manifesto. There's a lot more going on that requires time to digest and understand. A lot of people commenting here obviously haven't even tried. One thing of note that people regularly overlook, including in this video, is what is meant by "the State." For bourgeois society, the meaning is clear; we know it because we see it every day as the system of government that rules over us. For proletarian society, it's different: "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." If you replace "the State" with what Marx elaborated, you get something that provides a wholly different meaning than is presented (and assumed): "the State" is no longer some top-down organization of power, but is instead "the proletariat organized as the ruling class" in a bottom-up organization of power, so that the proletariat, by virtue of their number and position as the ruling class, can "win the battle of democracy" by democratically achieving the goals that the proletariat itself forms...which tend towards providing some amount of social welfare, democratization of workplaces, etc. Understanding that "the State" means something different in the socialist/communist sense than it does in the "normal" (bourgeois) sense is important to understanding why "socialism never works" and "the state in socialism never withers away like they promise it will" are ignorant statements. For socialism to work, the proletariat, not a political party, must both overthrow the bourgeois state AND replace it with bottom-up democracy. In fact, the ONLY way that the state can "wither away" is for the proletariat to collectively take on its bureaucratic, legislative, executive, and judicial functions through their workplace/community democratic apparatus, as well as through their voluntary and active participation in both the democratic process (discussion being the first and probably most important part, followed closely by both suggesting and then voting on decisions) AND the process of carrying out the decisions made, including how people will be held accountable to rule breaking, how work will get done (and by whom), etc. It can't be under-stressed: ALL of those things are not decided by some centralized "State" controlled by some party elite, but rather through community and workplace democracy that happens at the lowest levels possible; the distribution of goods and services, as well as labor, is likewise decided through that direct democracy. Not through "endless meetings where all of the minutia are debated until everyone dies of hunger from no work getting done," as the caricature insists, but through social interactions in every-day life, through social responsibility (which must be taught at home and reinforced in society), through social accountability (not to some police State, but to the people you call "neighbor," both on the streets and around the world), and when things need to be worked out above that most basic level, in gatherings of the people whose input is necessary, and who might be affected by the decision in a meaningful way (like people living down-stream of an industrial facility that might create pollution). For the state to be capable of "withering away," as Marx/Engels famously say, that is what the State must be. For that form of State to exist, the proletariat must be the ruling class in a democracy. If the proletariat is placed below a political party, especially one that it does not directly control, then the proletariat is not the ruling party (the masses of the Russian people did not control the party, but were instead largely controlled by it. "Why" is a matter for another discussion, but despite it having a strong proletarian presence fighting for proletarian interests, as well as some bottom-up democratic efficacy, it was still a top-down system controlled by a party elite, rather than a bottom-up democracy. That alone should make any thinking individual question exactly why it should be called a "socialist" country, especially after Lenin explicitly said that it wasn't because of those and other reasons). I realize this is a long post on a simple technicality, but to understand what is meant and what the implications are, you have to spend some time making the connections and such. You can't just read it in 20 minutes and claim to know anything, as some do, nor can you read only this work to gain a reasonable understanding of Marx/Marxism. Be deliberate in reading for the purpose of understanding; don't merely interpret things according to your own views. That's the only way to honestly learn, and to honesty criticize.

It would be great if you done a full lecture series.

Ellie, thank you so much for this channel. is noticeable all the work behind every chapter. would you consider interviewing other philosophers and thinkers in order to withdraw bigger conclusions from the discussions. sort of old days philosophy schools. cheers and thank you again this is fantastic. keep those videos rolling.

Thanks! I am finally starting to explore Marx, this helped.

Oh man, this is the first video I have seen and it's great. I was looking for an audiobook version of the manifesto to get a better understanding to use my words better, but these will be good 🤘

Alluring and compelling This makes for a very positive presentation, and very helpful for a former philosophy major still struggling to 'get it all' Thank you

I have long had an interest in philosophy. Thank you so much this wonderfully informative channel and your insightful talks.

wow thank you Dr. Ellie! this helps me see why i feel uncomfortable and confused at any jobs: converting my abilities to monetary value simply doesn't make sense to me. i feel much relieved just knowing that about myself

Like watching these lectures, few people are able to explain sophisticated things in such convinient way.

I think Marx mistake in the simplist form would be to say that he assumed that people will behave in rational ways given these truths. We are simply not rational in mass as today's social and political events are demonstrating. ...thank you for this wonderful program. One of the most impressive

i must say you this really breaks down the manifesto in simple form. thank you

What a channel!! I'm loving your videos, professor!

A presentation of the Manifesto that is relatively fair. There's much more of course, that one needs to be truly informed, but this is a good start.

Brilliant Video. I really Love the way you explain things. This was one of the Best Videos. I have ever Heard. Thank You So Much. ❤❤❤👍👍👍.

Thank you, this content is very awesome 💜

please please please do more of this, I am ready to religiously take notes of ur explanations, buy materials and read things over and over again! :////

I would agree that “The Communist Manifesto” has helped to reveal the truth of human nature.

Enjoyed the video and subbed, but then made the mistake of reading the comments and now have dislocated eyeballs due to the eye rolling.

3:20 Note: Marx and Engels in fact anticipated what Lenin would later call as imperialism, in demystifying the “free market”

thank you so much, these videos are SUPER HELPFUL

The CM states that the "workers have no fatherland." What does this mean and is it true. One aspect to consider is that migrant labor from the East seasonly entered "Germany" (a somewhat undefined large region before 1870); most workers were farmers, peasants. So, Marx rewrote the sentence, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.," to address the "written history." But, everyone was becoming aware that the interference with kin-based society, the beginnings of social inequality, and the origin of the state were problems that had now to be approached by reference to archaeological data. Kinship structures however were not erased by capitalism as they served as the basis of marriage, long a religious value even if resented. This resentment became palpable in 1918 when the new government in Russia permitted divorce and men left their families in droves. Ironically, many families of the "motherland" lost their fathers but this was nothing new to the war-torn Europeans!

Clear, direct and so well presented.

Great explanation I am from kashmir I love the way you teach

1:00 i like the bottom up approach.. no but seriously this is serious stuff

How would you explain the cultural facets people have like languages, castes, dresses, traditional continuities which are apart from the notion' base' determines everything.

I envy those who don't have adhd and able to stay focused and read a lot and become one of the smart clever bunch of humans

one of the most important concepts when reading Marx and Engels I would recommend to grasp is the "reproduction" of means&materials of production. after understanding why you are living only as a tool rather than a human from the perspective of reproduction values, you then can easily read through the arguments on "class" centered theories.

Really loved this Dr. Anderson! Thanks!

Thanks my teacher

Love this channel. A little audio tip here though from a nerd: try and take care of that sibilance. The “S” sounds are a little harsh. We cant have a revolution with sibilance.

I believe I'm listening a lecture of socialism, back in my 80's high school, in the Socialist Republic of Romania.

Finally is something in booktube that is not Shadowhunters

Very good.

Love the detailed analysis mixed with a perfect speaking tempo!

Their views are much more complex than this. For example, they see the lumpenproletariat, a criminal class, e.g. criminals, vagabonds, etc., as a group of people with no stake in the economic system. Also, they see the tension between the existing ruling classes and capitalists.

Thanks!

Marx and Engels wrote a lot of this manifesto near where I live in Eastbourne. There used to be a blue plaque on the building but somebody stole it.

A "bourgeois political rule" in the present time is possibly where the citizens are treated as mere consumers. And where there is "socialisation of losses and privatisation of profits".

I like this video very much. Indeed, communism is about human and their being, not about centralisation or collectivism.

Awesome presentation!! You go girl!

Most people who read the "Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers."

Awesome video, thanks

that was actually good i was preparing for my sociology exam and that came in handy

This sounds like Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality.

One historical point which should be understood concerning the result of the Communist Manifesto, namely the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917 and the execution of the Romanov family, the last monarchs of Russia, is that previously in the 19th century, two other Russian monarchs had been assassinated! So, the notion that Russia was not "ready" for a communist revolution is defied by the historical context.

I've always thought it was because of this critique of ideologies that we need to fully embrace direct realism in perceptual theory, ala J.J. Gibson, and along with it, the concepts of radical embodied cognition that rejects classic representationalist view of cognition.

It seems to me that Marx and Engels we're reductionist, mechanistic thinkers, and I do not believe the work has much value or relevance to modern real world scenarios. But hey, I do love the Socratic method and am just fine with being wrong

Well done!

Wonderful lecture! Thanks so much 🙏

I am very sorry to inform you, but, in case you have not already figured it out, the class of labour you refer to has already begun to be replaced with robotics and AI, not to mention the mass influx of lower-class labour into most of the Western world. The World Economic From (WEF) has so eloquently said we will own nothing and be happy, was not a predictor of communism but more totalism.

In a way Marx and Engels trust that the material conditions will create a state in which the proletariat, by way of the nature of spirit(as Marx inverted from Hegel's theory of spirit), will come to conscious awareness of their plight. Through this consciousness they will see within the system of capitalism the very conditions society must undo... The new conditions would be something like socialism and eventually communism. There is a lot of trust placed in the rationality of beings and a sort of natural movement toward a kind of harmony. Let me know if I'm missing the mark?

You're doing a great job! Thanks a ton!

this was brilliant, thank you

Great video! I think the audio was a little weird. I think it was clipping

Damn, that was deep, really appreciated!

This might be too much to ask for but will you consider adding what Bakunin thought about the proletariat seizing the state ?

Marxism speaks of "the withering away of the state". I've been waiting for THAT for some time now.

Just superb.

1:17 Which text are you talking about? I thought you were talking about the Communist Manifesto, but then you mention page 172. And the communist manifesto is very short. Only about 30 some pages.

Ok, you got me! When we start?

It would be great if you make a video Marxism itself and the representatives of Marxism in the 20th century as well.

Is not the case that there's an incompatibility between the communist revolution and historical materialism? Because,look; It seems that the communist revolution only if free will. And It seems that historical materialism only if not free will. What you think about that.

THE WHOLE REASON THERE CAN _BE_ A TELEOLOGY TO HISTORY IS THAT CONSCIOUS, SELF-MOVING SUBJECTS (human beings!) CAN CREATE THIS TELEOS! THIS IS ALL POSSIBLE SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMAN INTERACTION DOES INDEED RUN ON HEGELIAN POSITIVE SUM LOGIC, NOT JUST ARISTOTELIAN TRUE/FALSE LOGIC!

Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 11:05

Logical ideas expressed both logically and engagingly. Keep up the good work--and the struggle. Marx didn't say "Unite the Workers of the World." You can tell who his audience was by his "Workers of the World, Unite." The self-movement of the proletariat, no parties or trade unions (also tools of the bourgeoisie) is the only answer. Being a worker is a blessing.

Nicely done

Excellent!

Impact of averroesm on Marxism is significant specifically general intellect.

The main issue I see with Marxism is that it lacks Hegel's notion of recognition and acknowledgement from the other and gets stuck in a lordship/bondage, master/slave dynamic (and so does a Lockean social contract).

Bourgeoisie now develop into a much greater social class that has power over anything popularly known as oligarchs controlling nation state around the world

These things are all mixed in together in capitalism, and in what it is to be human (contemplated in antiquity, or before!). This is why I'm a big believer of blended economic systems (maintaining a scrupulous, managed mix of capitalism with socialism), which, in my opinion, can (or has the potential to-) produce an ongoing positive synergy effect on society, done properly. But an added layer of greed from special interest groups, lobbies, etc. has the eventual opposite outcome or impact, if left unchecked (hence the need for an ongoing socially-responsible monitoring, managing etc. of the mix). It can be argued that the railroad lobby, the sugar lobby, the oil lobby and so on, all had their momentarily positive or beneficial impact. But they, and others, have and will, outlive their usefulness, their positive impact. Rather like a good wizard eventually becoming the pinnacle source of evil which controls and personifies the 'dark side.' It is the wizardly energy from nothing were talking about here...-Synergy. And it is a viable phenomenon when talking about capitalism and economic systems otherwise. We humans, as individuals, and as large working class groups bring with us an almost unknowable but tappable energy, which can, in sum, work one way or the other, for those responsible or irresponsible societal leaders and captains of the workforce. Invoking the idea of synergy moves the discussion into the meta realm, becomes pinned as New Age mind-sparkle and is then promptly dismissed. But I don't think it should be dismissed, since I don't believe it is, in fact, unknowable. Should we disregard distinctly known phenomena such as inspiration? depression? and other such matters of the human experience? They all come to the table as people go to work, go home, drive their car, create a work of art, and so on. We disregard these in our materialist thinking at great peril!

This was an excellent, consice and clear explanation. Have yet to encounter this on KZfaq. Perhaps the best video on the subject I have seen. Very well done. Maybe some editorializing on how Marx and Engles invisioned the "dictatorship of the proletariat," but nothing objectionable was stated. Very well done. Thank you.

Let’s go!

Dear Ms. I respect you. Since you talked about Sartre and Marx, can you do "critique of diabetic reason", the next book I am going to read and I failed twice. I think on Marxism he has more depth than Arendt and Popper.

The best thing about your vids on Marx, is you dont have old rightwing white dudes in the comments saying shit like "MarXisM kIllEd 100 miLlion PeOPLe!"

Nice lectures

Hello I am a 60 + yr old trying to wrap my head around marxism. I recently watched a talk given by Jordan Peterson on the subject and wondered if you might help me by giving a little critique on his video. I enjoy watching and listening to your shows so keep up the good work. Cheers.

What makes capitalism(free market) exploitative?

That will be the United Federation of Planets

Very nice opening words, the whole point! the political economy is by nature forced to analyze the human psychological condition to be able to understand the economy more broadly. What you say in minute 0.50 is it somewhere in the manifesto? or anywhere else? I would like to see it somewhere precisely....my own opinion: I simply do not think that by changing the mode of production men and women will tend to be better or that humans will want to set forth a nicer society for the greater good. That is almost too utopian. The manifesto was somehow utopian why? many reasons, from Marx age (30), to his origins in Germany to the collective vibe of those central European nations that sprung up in this kind of thinking, it was possibly an intellectual trap. The search of collapse is natural to humans, to then be able to be saved or die. For me it is by mere chance that communism ended up anchoring in societies that had or were close to historical civilization collapse, hence Russia. Later in his life, he had Russian friends, and Cuban and french married his daughters.

TALK THAT TALK!

I particularly enjoyed the moment of cognitive dissonance at 9:12

Excellent summary. Neither Marx nor Engels understood the fire of individualization that drives most people to create lives, art, and businesses based on their unique desires/skills. Collectivist thought is so anti-human I can't understand how any deep thinker would fall for it.

knowing the default one relaxes, the complex is a forced strategum always marching towards a cliff 🌝

Very interesting, thank you!

Conjecture about how a world without private property would look is ultimately another rabbit hole...one could debate until doomsday. Ultimately one's politics are more a reflection of ones basic nature, temperament and disposition. Intellectual arguments are essentially a sideshow

so marx had faith. will see how that plays out :) Hegel seems more the divide and conquer type. you have nice hair!

9:56 How will the proletarian power drop away? What if "Humans are greedy in nature" was true? That means there will still be some people that would act as bourgeoisie. As long as different nations exist they always need a central state power.

But then wouldn't the ideaology that Marx and Engels have be influenced by their material conditions as well? As in, in some sense, capitalism was necessary in order for them to have these ideas? I agree with Marx, as long as he agrees with that statement. In saying that you cannot "force" a revolution. You have to follow hegelian dialetics and let it sublate. I agree with Marx, I just don't agree with revolution.

I trust in those same forces that you say Marx and Engels trusted in but "I need to state this succinctly as possible". We don't have the philosophical infrastructure yet to sustain a truly egalitarian economy. Unless you include Buddhism. E.G. the Star Trek economy i.e. (no money) where people can just have whatever they want materially due to replicator technology. So wealth/class division 'as we think of it' became meaningless. But all the petty ideas that result from capitalism ie Social Darwinism, and Greed is good, Power and Exclusivity unfortunately still run the show. So even though now that we are much closer to the technological breakthroughs required for that revolution than ever before (3d printing, and biological 3d printing, materials engineering, as well as nanotechnology, and genetic engineering) but we unfortunately couldn't sustain the Star Trek economy yet Because we don't have the philosophical infrastructure. Put another way we aren't spiritually evolved enough yet. Mankind still collectively vibrates too low. We be greedy! Look the Tasoday tribe had no real concept of ownership I'm told but we are pretty far from that. That's why our Democracy has become an Oligarchy. Also looming like the sword of Damocles over our jewel like Planet is The 6th Mass Extinction driven by late stage Capitalism. At the end of the day the work is spiritual because now in order to reclaim the better Angles of our Nature there's a lot of spiritual work ahead. And for folks who're just exclusively attached to Rational Empiricism in all compartments this won't compute.

"There have always been and always will be those who are driven by hate and want to blame those who are happy, creative and productive for their misery."

But is it also as a historical background that the so called state as we know it now has arisen out of capitalism neccessary necessity needs to that centralized and cohesive structure and power? In other words, the centralized power structure in the state form was essential to the supremacy of capitalism and it has been used as a tool and very effective way to keep its economical dominance. So the question of the so called STATE and government is of legitimate existence in the first place due to their relationship between capitalists if capitalists have no rational justified reasons for existence then the state and government have no way to rationally justified that same existence!

READ MARX for help understanding capitalism! The channel DISSIDENT THEORY is a great help. Just as helpful as OVERTHINK PODCAST 📕❤️📕❤️📕❤️📕

I'm confuse you said pg 163 but it was a pamphlet.

The critique always goes so well… and then, that small mythical twist that Marx throws in at the end always let’s the wind out of that proverbial communist sail.

What is the trust in the material world to get better? Hegel believed in Spirit; Marx obviously does not. Hegel borrowed from Christianity that time is heading somewhere good (Christ will return and all will be well). But, what in the world does Marx as an atheist who only believes in the material world think is guiding/running/ the engine of history in a POSITIVE/PROGRESSIVE direction?

What’s missing from the manifesto recapitulation the professor ably voices is the concept of socializing public goods. So for example forests belong to the people as a shared resource. Or more clearly education, healthcare, and housing are managed by the state so that workers can have those resources. This management of resources is socialist policies. As opposed to the rich owning public goods and adding a ‘profit’ to say public housing so that housing assets take more and more proportion of income as profit.