I thought I'd return with some follow-up thoughts. One thing that needs to be said is that Marx & Engels wrote a lot. Their writing was consistent, but not perfectly consistent. Stances on violence, war, and the preconditions for revolution fluctuated. Marx also wasn't the clearest writer, favoring emotional language over technical precision. On top of that, there were holes in their theory, or at least spotty parts, sometimes on important points (ex. what exactly does the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' mean? How can the dictatorship of the proletariat rule 'democratically?' What did Engels mean when he said the State would 'wither away?'). As a result, there is no universally agreed upon understanding of what classical Marxism actually is. Circles tend to form around different interpretations of it, each circle believing they hold the correct understanding of Marxism. That has led to a long history of disagreement on Marx and fighting among Marxists. Within that, I tried to stick with the closest we have to a standard understanding, using both primary and secondary sources. I tried to put as little of my own opinion into it as possible and to flag where I did, like my interpretation of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his means'. I think the part that rubbed the most people the wrong way was the claim that Marx's communism is essentially totalitarian. In my experience that's the standard explanation, and I did flag that some disagree with it. But I think it squares quite fully with his writing. There's no one sentence you can point to where he says 'this is a totalitarian society' (the word didn't exist yet), so you have to analyze what he said to get there. The communist society he described was one where communism was forced on the whole population. Just reading the Manifesto makes that clear, and the passages I cite in this video flesh that out more. They describe a society entirely permeated by communism, with no opposition, with communist politics heavily encroaching into the lives of all. Communists and Marx called that a 'free' society. That conception of a free society seems to have come from Rousseau's idea that society should be ruled by the 'general will,' which he laid out in his Social Contract. Once the general will of the people is determined (Rousseau did not say how that process should work, something he shares with Marx), then that general will needs to be forced upon the rest of the public. The general will is a monolithic guiding power that rules all, and that allows nothing to conflict with it. Everyone is 'forced to be free' as Rousseau put it. It's a peculiar conception of freedom. Rousseau acknowledged that, and quickly gave up trying to articulate what actually makes it a form of freedom. But that's the 'free' 'democratic' society Marx was describing that the dictatorship of the proletariat would create. Marx named the ruling idea that would guide the general will: communism. I'm describing totalitarianism. A society where communism shapes everything political. Communism is forced upon everyone to the extent deemed necessary by those in power (again, communists), in order to create a society free of class conflict/oppression. You could think about it this way: in a liberal/capitalist society, if you want to live your life as a communist, you're relatively free to do it. If you want to form a business with communist/socialist principles, go for it. If you want to form a commune, have at it. If you want to participate in politics as a communist, feel free to try it. You can really do pretty much whatever you want with your life, and participate in politics however you want (as long as you don't threaten violence). If you don't want to be political, that's fine too. Liberal societies do not have a vision, an end goal, that they try to push everyone toward. There's no utopia at the end of the tunnel. It's more or less a sandbox design for a society, and the people within them get to decide how they want to live their lives. In a communist society, everyone needs to be communist. That includes Marx's communism, which again forces itself onto the public with the goal of entirely shaping politics in order to eliminate class conflict. People are not cattle, so repression would be needed in order to accomplish that. It's possible that if a communist society existed for a long time, and communism was widely accepted by the public, communists would feel secure enough in their position to give political freedom and control over affairs back to the whole people, but as Bertrand Russell put it: 'this is a distant ideal, like the Second Coming; in the meantime, there is war and dictatorship, and insistence upon ideological orthodoxy.' (History of West. Phil. 790) If I'm wrong about what I just said, I've never seen anyone successfully articulate why - in the comments or anywhere in anything I've read. I think it's the closest we have to a standard explanation for good reason. Marx did endorse democratic practices by the Paris Commune, but that was when democracy brought about a result that he liked (voting was restricted to Paris and held at an especially radical time). I'm not aware of any examples of him endorsing democracy that brought about a result that went against his views. If you only endorse democracy that moves society towards socialism, and you condemn all other examples as 'bourgeois democracy,' it's hard to conclude you're in favor of democracy. I've never seen anyone deal with these things and still claim that he was democratic and not totalitarian. Also when socialists in Marx's time said they should spend their time pushing for gradual reforms, like expanding voting rights to the working class, Marx condemned it. He didn't want workers to have more of a say in a pluralistic, democratic society. He wanted class tensions to build until they exploded, ending with communists taking control of everything. I covered that in my in-depth socialism vid. Last point: I offended some by skipping Marx's economics. Some even say his claims entirely depend on his economics. I think that's an oversimplification. Some of his beliefs aren't verifiable or falsifiable by economics, like the claim that capitalism is the last form of society featuring class conflict, and that the next society will be communist. Also his core beliefs existed before his economics developed. He believed that capitalism was exploitative/alienating, that communism will be the next, preferable society, and he believed in historical materialism early in life (his 20s). He then spent the rest of his life developing his economic theory predicting the end of capitalism that we see in Capital. So his own beliefs did not depend on his economics in order to form. His economic theory came second, appearing to affirm beliefs he already had. That said, if you're interested in his economics, you can find explanations all over the internet. He's less politicized there. I may as well quickly lay out his theory and explain what I mean about it having mistakes. First, he thought that the amount of labor put into a product determines its value. Now imagine someone works for 10 hours. The worker creates product worth 10 hours of labor. But the worker isn't paid that amount. Let's say the worker created $100 worth of products in that 10 hours, but is only paid $50 in wages. The other $50 then is 'surplus value' i.e. profit for whoever owns the business. Crucially, the worker is only paid subsistence wages (from Ricardo's 'iron law of wages'), so the worker struggles and has no path to better their position in society through work. Others will take their job, so the worker can't bargain for more. The business owner then uses the $50 profit 'appropriated' (basically stolen) from the worker to expand their business. If that keeps up, the power dynamics in society will become more exaggerated. Workers stay poor, business owners get richer. They compete with each other, buying more machines, which means they need less human labor. Since labor (according to Marx) creates profit, profit rates fall. Businesses push down wages and lengthen hours to stay competitive. People can't buy what's being produced. A series of increasingly severe economic crises occur. Misery increases, a vast underclass forms, revolts, takes power. The two biggest places it goes wrong, afaik, are 1) Labor doesn't determine the value of a product. More goes into it, like supply, demand, marginal utility, factors relating to competition (or lack of) between firms. 2) He underestimates (really vilifies) the role of leaders (like CEOs) and managers. He doesn't appreciate how much work it takes to start and maintain a successful business, and in his theory the workers get credited with doing almost all the valuable work. There were also political assumptions in Marx's thinking, like the belief that 'capitalists' have a monopoly on political power (impeding reforms) which seems to be wrong. It also didn't make much sense at the time (& makes even less sense now) to define class by your relationship to the means of production, something Schumpeter pointed out ~80 years ago. Marx's theory was built on classical models and was to some extent out-of-date even in his lifetime, which is partially why it was slow to get attention (his writing style didn't help). In Marx's defense, he made many think about capitalism in a new way. Most academics that I've seen point out mistakes simultaneously acknowledge it as a work of genius. And some of his mistakes were also made by the best economists until then, like labor determining value. If you wonder why I didn't say this in the video, it's because to do it right I'd have to introduce Marx's terms (like labor theory of value) and thought it would be burdensome on the video, especially since I wasn't sure if the audience really cared about this stuff. - Ryan @realryanchapman

I love what you're doing by going back to primary sources, rather than repeat copies of copies of interpretations. We need more of this!

You made a mistake. Marx did not say that the working class will become poorer if capital grows (in terms of their material position). He said that it will actually grow but at the cost of their social position. Meaning that the minority at the top will control greater wealth and thus global inequality will increase. You can read it in Wage-Labour and Capital.

Probably the first American channel who explain Marxism without starting with “he caused millions of deaths, communists are like evil etc” or starting to enforce it with low quality communist propaganda. Thanks from Italy, great content

Thank you Ryan. As always your ultra clear spot on explanation for this topic is a must listen. As it’s been for each topic that you’ve taken on.

Hell yea Ryan! Been waiting for a new one to drop!

Many people don't realize how amazing these videos are. I have read a few of these primary sources, but really condensing it all down, and decoding it into laymens terms. So much work here.

You forgot to talk about the "withering away of the state" in Marxism. "The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong - into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax." - Friedrich Engels, in "The Origins of The Family, Private Property, and The State."

My main objection was when you characterized Marx and Marxism as totalitarian. Karl Marx did not discuss death camps, concentration camps or the Gulag? Isn't is doubtful whether Marx anticipated events like Lenin's vanguard party and Stalin's purges or the gulag? Marxism was characterized as totalitarian by the Cold War liberals who failed to glean the similarities between Soviet marxism and National Socialism. It was Stalin, Hitler and Mao who were totalitarian and none of them used Marx’ economic theory. The issue is that Marxism, and you take time to clarify the distinction between Marx, Marxists and Marxism, is composed of Marx's works, his sources, and many different historical events and persons. There is Soviet Marxism, there is Eastern Marxism, there is Western Marxism, there is Cuban Marxism, there is American Marxism, and all of these Marxisms can be compared and contrasted to different versions of a "Communist Party." The actual political history cannot be explained simply by Marx's theory! The use of the term 'Marxism' does not refer to totalitarianism because it also refers to the only resistance to totalitarianism. Lastly, Marx did not simply characterize Marxism as composed of either socialists or communists. Did he not at least recognize anarchists? Did he not also include Democrats and the process of democratization? There is a mystified relation between Marxism and totalitarianism. It is disingenuous to claim that the heart of Marx's ideas is the Communist Manifesto - which has been cherry-picked to death - and ignore his major works on economic theory, namely surplus value, while failing to characterize this work holistically. It is also wildly inaccurate to discuss Marxism without addressing Western Marxism.

When Ryan drops a video, I stop everything for the following half hour. His breakdowns can’t wait!

I would absolutely love to see a video on feudalism. It seems like an important topic for understanding the new emerging market forms of the 19 hundrets

Here is Michael Bakunin, the revolutionary anarchist and contemporary of Marx in the International Workingmen’s Association, explaining in 1869 how Marx’s ten-point program in the Communist Manifesto has a built-in tendency to create a totalitarian state. His descriptions feel eerily prescient of the USSR in the 1930s. Marx was fully aware of Bakunin’s criticisms and wilfully chose to ignore them. Instead he had Bakunin expelled: “The reasoning of Marx ends in absolute contradiction…. To appropriate all the landed property and capital, and to carry out its extensive economic and political programs, the revolutionary State will have to be very powerful and highly centralised. The State will administer and direct the cultivation of the land, by means of its salaried officials commanding armies of rural workers organised and disciplined for this purpose. At the same time, on the ruins of the existing banks, it will establish a single state bank which will finance all labour and national commerce.” “It is readily apparent how such a seemingly simple plan of organisation can excite the imagination of the workers, who are as eager for justice as they are for freedom; and who foolishly imagine that the one can exist without the other; as if, in order to conquer and consolidate justice and equality, one could depend on the efforts of others, particularly on governments, regardless of how they may be elected or controlled, to speak and act for the people! For the proletariat this will, in reality, be nothing but a barracks: a regime, where regimented working men and women will sleep, wake, work, and live to the beat of a drum; where the shrewd and educated will be granted government privileges; and where the mercenary-minded, attracted by the immensity of the international speculations of the state bank, will find a vast field for lucrative, underhanded dealings.”

I am a recent Ryan convert/ fan/ homie... such well presented info, and so calm... no yelling and raging and name calling. So refreshing, y'all agree?

I absolutely love this channel. The detailed footnotes, the painstaking references, yet the brevity and lucidity. It gives me hope in humanity!

Great work, I love that you actually present quotations from original texts

When I want to learn a topic, I start by taking notes on one of your videos. Very well done content!

The best characterization of private property is that is property used for capital, in contrast to personal property that has no capital value, such as toothbrushes. Marx was ambiguous of the form of governance, aside from needing to be pro-revolutionary working class.

Vlad here, philosopher. Just want to congratulate Ryan on the video as a step into the subject. Marx of course said that ''philosophy stands to the study of the real world in the same relationship as masturbation stands to real sexual love', and it's not clear what positive role he saw for philosophy. For him it was secondary to empirical inquiry into the logic of capitalism & the sociology of supersession. I highly recommend a tiny taste here on KZfaq of Raymond Geuss's lectures on Marx. Raymond is more sympathetic to Marx than I, but his passion for avoiding bullshit & placing us in history is infectious. Congratulations again!

Man, your videos are so good.

I love your work so far, Ryan. Please keep it up.

Please make more content. I can't get enough!

I will just say, that Marx's actual prediction that wealth will become more concentrated in the hands of the rich, is actually proving true. A lot of economists do actually agree with Marxist economists, but only primarily on his reasoning on why capitalism is bad. Because Marx's predictions are actually holding true, people call this stage (particularly post-2008 financial crash) "late-stage capitalism"

This is a fantastic channel. Keep at it!

Amazing video and great work!!! More like this!

Thank you for your time and knowledge put into these videos

Terrific treatment of a big subject. Love it.

But Marx's economics is a key part of his ideology because that is where the empirical facts and analysis that underlie his scientific, materialist conceptualizations, Marx's argument lives or dies on the strength of his economics. This is why the man spent so much time on it. His early philosophical writings in 1844 provide the motivation for his life's work and his political stance and theoretical paradigm, but they have little to say on the validity of his arguments that supposed to be *scientific* not philosophical.

Amazing ! Thanks for clarifying so much.

Amazing! Very well done!

most underrated channel on youtube

by far the best bottom-up explanation of marxism i have ever listened to. came across your channel a few weeks ago and have been learning a lot

Thank you for breaking this down very well explained 👍

Very cool video, it definitely helped clear some confusion

Ryan, you are a champion of credibility because of your humble and honest approach. I appreciate these videos a ton! Please keep up the good work :)

I wish I could have had watched this when I was in college.

Thank you for explaining this. Excellent Job 👍

Only now stumbled onto your excellent channel- just subscribed! Greetings from Greece.

Also in Marx's times physical punishments were practised by employers. And not just in his times, my grandpa was telling me long time ago that his father working in Škoda factory in Czechoslovakia was once - for "working too slowly" - hung by his hands from ceiling for three hours in the entrance hall of the building so everyone saw him as an example. Similar things were happening before second world war all over the Europe. I hope we will never get back to it, but in this world you really never know. God bless.

I've learned so much from this channel in the short time since I discovered it. Truly incredible videos filled with a calm unbiased professional explanation on complex subjects. Looking forward to more!

Thanks! Very Informative. On a side note, what's that software/tool that you are using for streaming the books and the highlight feature within it for illustration?

This is excellent work, bravo.

Ryan seems like someone who is genuinely interested in presenting material in as much of an unbiased view as possible. Some mistakes were made on this topic. It's hard, if not impossible to cover a topic as dense as Marxism in 32 mins. Go to the source if you want to learn more!

This explanation was EXCELLENT! Very through. Subscribed! 😁

im so happy i found this channel

I hear Ryan's theme song in the beginning and my day get's a little better.

Well, about your early analysis of the situation in Marx's time vs. Locke's: Your analysis may have been true in the United States and Great Britain, but I'm not sure how true it was in Germany and in Russia, where Marxism was stronger and more popular among workers than in the former two. Germany and Russia weren't liberal countries, both had strong monarchies. And the governments there weren't non-interventionist. They were interventionist - on behalf of the elite. Like in Russia, protest could be dispersed by gunfire wherever they occurred. And, exploitative power structures there predated industrialization, especially in Russia. Russia still had serfdom until the 1860s, and serfs were little better than slaves. So I think the background is a little more complicated than you made it out to be, especially considering that Marx was German.

Thank you. That was extremely useful and informative

Excellent Explanation and Presentation... Will Definitely Follow ✅

Actually the middle class poverty is here, workplace safety and so on are being hindered, labor movement and worker rights are being trampled all over the world. We are at the second gilded age and that is bad.

Only just seeing this now. Your understanding, and presentation of, the topics you discuss, tends to be a breath of fresh air. Keep going.

I will have many segments of this video written on notebooks!!! This is the best!!! I predict I will watch this video many times more!!!

Thanks Ryan that was so interesting

I love this guy for actually giving references for almost everything he explains.

Wonderfully done

A note on wages- the bourgeoisie will pay workers as little as possbile in order to make as much as possible. They can make profit and pay more, but this is not enough for them.

I mean as it is now we don't have a multi-party democracy. On top of that we have oligarchy, a system where politicians are openly bought by the rich and where political action corresponds almost not at all with public opinion.

Marx and Lenin or my two greatest heroes Groucho Marx and John Lennon

Very helpful and easy to follow video, thank you.

great summary!

I have just recently heard of Marxism and was extremely curious to what it was. I am not a 'political, statistical, religious..ect' person. In all honesty it's so complicated I can't understand most things in the slightest to even try to learn about it more. I have comprehension issues, learning disabilities, But you have managed to explain this in the simplest way possible that I understood everything that you said because not only did you read the words would you elaborated more on the words. Even examples at the end. Thank you❤️

I have binge watched each of your videos. Your detailed analysis without getting into the politics and slick editing really gave me excellent education into poly-sci. Thank you and keep up the good work.

Thank you; you just saved me a lot of time.

Great stuff again!

The extreme poverty rate is interesting. I mean what is extreme poverty? To me, it seems a big portion of the global south live in extreme poverty way more than 9% so my guess is on how these papers classify extreme poverty. Relatively speaking compared to 1800 it seems conditions have improved but I don't think that's a good enough for our modern society

Ryan, you and James Lindsay have been insanely helpful in my goal to understand more theory. IM so glad there is someone to break down these concepts for the layman.

Wow. How very well done. How enlightening.

Haven’t seen the channel before but I like that you are someone who reads a lot. I’ve never actually seen someone define specifically what Marxism is. I just know it’s part of that bubble with socialism, communism, Maoist Stalinist Leninist stuff. I subscribed.

This is probably one of the top most underrated Chanels for political commentary out there,

During the first half you made a rather decent job, but your representation of "Communism" is very wrong. Why? You even cite from Marx' "Critique of the Gotha Programme", but somehow you manage to present the position of the German socialist party (which Marx criticizes, hence the title of that letter!) as Marx' own position... Nothing you say from that chapter onwards has anything to do with Marxism, but is a gross misrepresentation.

This was a great video!

Very intelligent guy you are. Thank you for the videos. Keep them coming 👏🏼

I appreciate your neutrality with this explanation, and feel that I have a clearer understanding now.

Your analysis and your conclusion omitted the current working conditions in the global south and developing nations and how the conditions of the people producing most products live in conditions not dissimilar to the workers of Marx's time. You also omitted the fact that the economic divide between the rich and the poor has grown tremendously. The richest man in Marx's lifetime, I believe was, William Vanderbilt, who in today's money, would have an estimated $6.2 billion. The richest person, as I post this, is Elon Musk, who has $238 billion. It's true global proverty levels have decreased over time, but income inequality is not decreasing. If Marx's goal was to eliminate economic inequality, ensure workers have meaningful jobs, and end the subjugation of working people, Marx's fundemental ideas about and analysis of society still apply to our current conditions. Even though capitalism's appearance has changed shape in some ways, it still functions essentially as it did in Marx's time.

This was the best explanation of Marxism I’ve found in over 4 years of trying to get a better understanding of it. Thank you for putting in the effort to learn and teach!

only channel to make me watch a 30min video instantly

I feel as though the idea that not having an opposing party that is trying to push an alternative economic system is totalitarian or divorced from democracy, is not a particularly fair take. I’m not sure how many countries have a set up like that. Republicans and Democrats are both capitalist, Tories and Labour are both capitalist. I feel as though this is a particular criticism is one levied at socialist systems but for any society to progress it can’t be debating the basis of its entire economy all the time. Either way thank you for the video and research on a topic a lot of ppl won’t bother to touch

When you said that eventually, Capitalism survived much longer and people lived much better than Marx predicted, it should be added that this is mostly because capitalists, pressured by their Marxists counterpart in their respective countries + the anxiety of a revolution, and the post-WWII USSR at the doorstep accepted to compromise leading to things such as social security, healthcare, in most European countries for instance.

He also makes the mistake by thinking everyone takes pride in their work. I have worked with some people who couldn’t have cared less about their quality of work. The world is full of two kinds of people, givers and takers.

Very helpful. Thank you

Ryan Chapman should have a discussion with Dr. Richard Wolff

When Chapman describes the working conditions of modern workers, he fails to note the workers of the Global South. I don't believe that Marx saw the emergence of Imperialism. The US working class does benefit somewhat from the wealth of imperialism. The modern bourgeois (the US oligarchs) is not limited to one country anymore. They exploit worker-nations now. It does look however that the global order is changing. Marx may not have correctly predicted the future, but many of his ideas are still relevant. China, maybe because its PCP does care for the well-being of its people, used the US oligarchs to industrialize its country in exchange for their technology.

I have been watching your channel over the last few weeks as I just found it and I really enjoy your content. Very educational and appropriate for our current "modern" times here in the USA. I do want to ask you something though. Why do you keep saying Epic when the word is Epoc. They have completely different meanings? Please do keep up the great work you are doing in educating us.

Oh my god what a in-depth analysis

“ In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity … society regulates production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic. ” (Marx/Engels - The German Ideology) Source: grin publizieren

For the graph that is used at @30:30, I recommend people what the video "Steven Pinker and the Failure of New Optimism ft. We're in Hell" by Unlearning Economics since it does a deeper dive in to poverty measures and some of the possible concerns about them. The key part of the video starts at around 19:20, but I recommend the whole thing or at least the run-up for context. I really do appreciate the videos Ryan and I think you do your best to make them as unbiased as possible, particularly in the explanation of the theories.

Hey I really like videos and think it is very informative.

This is excellent. Thank you

This was really great and seemingly unbiased. I'm kinda disappointed in how simple, ideologically driven, and illogical Marx was. I'm not really sure how young educated people might become so entranced with Marx and Marxism. There are massive leaks in logic for someone who claimed to be devoted to logic and science in his work. He totally neglected to account for people's desire to work in the first place once they are removed from artisan style work. Even though he talks about those effects directly, he somehow forgets by the time he gets to "according to their ability and need". Why would anyone want to continue working to their ability if their needs are met. The surplus of labor/property is still going to be created and if you only get what you need out of it you'd still feel ripped off or demotivated. People need reasons to work to create more than they need to. Family, status, luxuries, etc. Those needs are not unique to capitalism. As for historicism; he couldn't see the future, but communism always fails and hierarchies never cease to exist.

I just found your channel and I love how you present the information in a manner that is educational and presented in an unbiased manner. Thank you

Great content, instant sub

Thank u for explaining things in simple terms

I don't agree that just because only socialists are allowed that the political system is totalitarian. Liberal democracies don't allow fascists, monarchists, and sometimes socialists to have a say in government and in most liberal democracies the only choices are different types of liberalism and we seem to be ok with that. Why does the standard change when a hypothetical socialist country doesn't let capitalists, monarchists, and fascists have a say in government?

Your vids are so concise. It’s so helpful. Thank you.

Thank you so much, These Concepts are really nightmare to understand for STEM student. BRAVO!!!

They. Never. Worked day in. Life Leeched off. Family & Friends

Very important video as always, giving the floor to a useful expression of Marx's ideas to many who may not have ever read his works, but keep hearing him or variations of his ideas invoked. The explanation of "Property" at the beginning was so useful as a foundation for how Marx engaged with that concept. Just reading through the text you highlighted (and the text around that), it was eye-opening to see the terms that are used in so many ways in the modern context.

Excelent, as all your videos.

What a gem of channel! *Insta sub activated*

I liked the easily digestible breakdown of Marx early on. I disagree that you've really found anything in Marx that supports totalitarianism though. As you say, he was openly pro-democracy, pro-freedom of speech etc. The passages you quote are mostly about revolution, which Marx was obviously OK with. A logical conclusion from your argument is that all revolutions are totalitarian - including revolutions that have instituted liberal regimes. The rest of the claims - state-owned media, no freedom of speech etc, aren't accompanied by quotes like your earlier arguments - and that's because they simply don't reflect anything Marx said.

so he said the owners are oppressing the workers and to solve that let the government actually do the same thats some logic