Thank you for the playlists Finbol

My understanding is this - from the standpoint of the dialectic of capital, the value of a commodity its marketability for the seller, whereas the use-value of a commodity is its utility to buyer. To this end, the inner logic of the commodity presupposes a social relation of private individuals who buy and sell commodities on a market to satisfy their needs, whatever may be their nature. For a commodity to be realized as value for the seller, it must be exchangable for another commodity which the seller desires. However, the seller of a commodity is indifferent to the use-value of the commodity they want to sell, so the exchange-value of a commodity can only be realized through the value-form, which ignores the use-value content of any commodity that is sold. This in turn necessitates a universal commodity called money that reflects the value of all commodities (within a market), but does not have a specific use-value of its own (beyond being a means of purchase). If money is a commodity, then it also must have an independent existence from the market as idle funds, which is to say that it can function as a store of value in entering / exiting circulation. This activity enables any commodity-owner to be a merchant if they so choose, where the name of the game is to buy cheap and sell dear, to earn as much money as possible. The very process of valorization (augmentation of value) is capital itself, whereby "equivalent" exchange is reduced to a petty matter of "gambling" over funds currently in circulation. However, this gamble is nevertheless qualitatively restricted to the use-values of the commodities which are flipped, which to some degree involves the discernment of buyers. Valorization via money-lending is an attempt at circumventing the mediation of use-values, but all it can do is intercept and parasitize existing mercantile profit. It is *only* with the genesis of industrial capital in purchasing means of production and labor-power as commodities that the use-value restriction to capital is overcome. The law of value ensures the unity of capitalist production on the condition that labor-power is a commodity, which permits the market allocation of labor across firms in socially necessary quantities.

I heard recently that Georgii Malenkov was ‘ based ‘.

Lenin says things like “they are afraid of class struggle “ when speaking of the peasents . But couldn’t it be said that they simply were not living in revolutionary conditions ? Only proletarians live in revolutionary conditions for socialism , peasents couldn’t care less no matter how oppressed they are . Idk why, maybe they aren’t socialized as well living on farms and in the suburbs . Maybe they have a better chance of becoming middle class than a proletarian. Either way, they aren’t afraid to struggle, they don’t have the incentive to do so.

What's the name of this GAME PLEASEEEE

9 years ago, thank you 🇵🇸

Apparently in October 1930 Arnold Rechberg was involved in spreading Conspiracy Theories that the Nazis and the Soviets were in cahoots.

But dont misunderstand me as If i am asserting Relativism, which would be stupid. Quite to the contrary, i stand firm but open to Discourse on the only ground, upon which one can have the certainty of a blind following Dogmatist, without falling in that trap. The ground being classical Logic and the cultivation of what Plato might have called reason, even against His many Errors Made in the believe to have it.

Furthermore, the necessity of socialism is Not necessitated to be derived by anything Like dialectical Materialism, but can be very Well, If Not only be truly come to by thourough logical thought, without any system of believes that treats itself as a Dogma, by which one can come to such silly criticism Like that of Revisionism, as If i am talking to a fundamental Christian of whatever sort, trying to speak any Sense by speaking of Revisionism and calling Out people as of Some group, that can be villainised. Indeed, i am far from deep or related to the entire Bubble of the talks and topics Here, and i am very lucky about it, for it seems as painfull as the presence of fundamental religious believers.

Im sorry, but you are thourougly missled. Formal Logic is undoubtable and the Basis of any thought and Assessment of the World, so If Dialectics would contradict it, it contradicts itself and IS wrong. Dialectic might therefore be Well compatible with formal Logic, but only under it. Something is Not true because it somehow brings anything in practical Life. The sciences are accordingly Well shaped, at least as far as the Observation and description is concerned, and No other Logic is valid then the so called mechanical, for cause and effect are necessary Terms of understanding, although they dont entail monocausality necessarily, as many sciences already acknowledge the interconnectedness and Interdependence of Systems and Elements of them. You dont seem to understand, that the sciences are Well aware of this and Take into Account in the example of Evolution by Natural or artificial selection, that the Lifeforms have an Impact in their own need for Adaption and success of reproduction. Many Lifeforms have died out by their behaviour. Formal Logic and science dont necessitate the Position of anything in a Vacuum, but that they are Well defined and analysable and falsifiable. The interconnectedness and Interdependence of Things are nothing Special to what is called Dialectics. There is No perfect harmony and No Natural law of Progress, No Goal to which History or whatever strives by the necessary development of Things. Dialectical Materialism is an Error, a ideology presupposing itself and denying any contradiction to it. It is simply asserted and argued for teleologically, which is wrong If concerned with a description of the World. Much suffering has been caused by it, Like by any other Error and idiocy. The sciences are Not free from it too, but at least Up for grabs. Struggle is real. It has System. But it has nothing to do with the Nature of aspects of the World Like physics, and to call the mechanical school of thought to be reductionist, which it is, while Suggesting, that the dialectical Materialism is Not, is simply laughable, as it is wholely reductionist when it tries to encompass literally everything to an extant into its narrow Framework in the Tradition of System builders Like Hegel. Motion is indeed an intricate Matter of fact, but nothing Special about that. The noumenal Fundamental concepts are in No Motion at all, yet they are and necessarily so and foundational in some way to anything Material or mental. If you are going so much after Motion, you could have found it all in heraclitus already and his panta rei. What is true is Not derived by what is useful, and It is Not useful, what defies truth. For anything can be useful to everything, only, If one does Not understand the true utility, which is clearly nothing of wishfull thinking or believed Out of Desperation due to actual suffering. Its eliviation can only be sought after in search for the Truth, which the good follows. Be carefull and beware, for dialectical Materialism is, as many If Not all other perspectives Limited Bit with a fervor and Claim to totality, which only the one pursuit of Truth by Logic can have. The hints of dialectical Materialism are in some Respects insightful, but really Not that new. After all, it is Not simply the Material Basis that formes the ideal upperbasis, and equally Not vice versa, But one rests assured, that they are Interdependent. More is maybe Not possible to know of These overwhelming Things, and is Not needed too maybe. There is No justified violence as one of retribution or proactive destruction, but clearly of ultima Ratio defense, to which true Liveration Fights May call upon. But to cite Mao Zedong, one also responsible for unspeakable horrors and Injustices in the mindrotten Name of proletariate liberation and ascencion is, If meant affirmingly, cynical and rotten, im sorry. I hold it to be clear and evident, that you have No such Intentions on your Mind, so i dont judge you, for there is No place for that where it is clear, that one is in danger of being ignorant to ones own Errors. It is therefore, as one cannot simply Help oneself with that, that i reached Out to you in this lenght and after so many year still.

Fincels don't have souls

Oy Vey

If you’ve got the time ( & you can bear to sit through his ‘work’ ) I’m hoping that you can ‘deconstruct’ TIK’s dreadful new vilification of Karl Marx…

How do Marxists address Karl Popper’s critiques that Marxism is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable?

What is the difference between ancient slavery and the trans atlantic slave trade?

If you want build Communism you always need to bear in mind that practice is most important, not theory... But if you have good socialist background and good intentions you will always succeed.

Marx and Lenin were important thinckers of Communism. But please remember that practice is much more complicated. Stalin was practician of Communism. He often struck with problems were theory doesnt fit itnto practice... But he was able build very strong country from very poor tsarist Russian. Soon after his death USSR won race into Cosmos. USA was number 2.

no, ker tako globoko razumete teorijo, me sedaj zanima naslednje: kdaj bo prišlo do revolucije na finskem in v drugih deželah nato pakta, vključno z angleškim govornim področjem? :) :) :)

Timeless…unfortunately.

Is there a 'leftist' party left in the West?

It's indicative that those polls were constantly conducted. NATO was ceaselessly trying to get into Finland until in a moment of fear they prised the door open and now you'll never get rid of them.

After losing 27,000,000 Soviet citizens to the West last time there was a war Russia has adopted the Soviet military thinking that at all costs war cannot be waged on its territory. In the case of war Russia will go outwards as much as possible. This was the whole reason of the Cold War; the USSR wanted to keep the West at arm's length and the West demanded to surround the USSR with missile bases. The solution; don't attack Russia. What's so wrong with peace anyway?

Thanks comrade!

Thanks comrade!

Paul Cockshott has a fantastic book about the history of human labor and it's evolution called "How The World Works", he also has a great KZfaq channel. Highly recommended.

Catching a fish takes 5 hours ??? 😂 Bro ! What empty lakes are you fishing in ? 😂

Amerikans ... "Genius Species" ... not.

Neanderthals .... still present in USA, as in "neanderthal-minded."

Everything in this video is just pure bullshit. You really want a nanny state to tell workers and educate them like they were fucking babies, right? LOL

The USSR failed, China failed, Cuba failed. So we got enough evidence to support that Vanguardism and Leninism just isn't effective in creating communism. And before you spew "ThE CiA CrEaTeD ThE OuTComE" Yea, and they still failed. which means leninism and maoism just doesn't work against infiltration. So we need a form of anarcho-communism, not this idealist "vanguard"

I can't see this series put into a playlist on your channel which makes it harder to follow...

Why did Stalin allow commodity production

The only exploitation rightwingers perceive is high taxes. They dont see or care about the exploitation in their workplace every day. The extraction of their surplus labour. Too many people in general don't understand this.

Last stage of capitalism: "Kaputnik."

"Vulgar Capitalism," that's where capitalism somehow solves the problems IT CREATED.

"Vulgar Capitalism" aka "New World Order."

If man has not created a third ideology, does that include Juche philosophy?

Great work as always, comrade! It's always awesome to see you've uploaded. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say you/ your efforts are a treasure to the international communist [(anti-revisionist) ML] movement. I was recently saying as much to another comrade, heh. [I'm not trying to be an asskisser; I think that's legitimately the case.]

Why are we aiming for one country? This is class war for goodness sake. We have a world to win. Secure the fortress. Spread our agents. Grow and liberate

have you read the work of ian wright, he has a good number of short illustrative articles on value related topics

about the last part, am i right in saying that its not really a matter of, the capitalists' personality/wanting to make more money, but a process of natural selection of companies, where those that multiply capital more efficiently buy out the other ones so we get a mechanism that selects for the ones that are the most exploitative? kind of like the process of monopolies forming, or maybe its the same thing?

Hey I just wanna ask an off topic question since idk if ur gonna talk about this: (Also great video btw) Why were there cult of personalities in so many socialist countries? I know Stalin wasnt responsible for his but did for example eastern europe just copy him? For example Rakosi since you have a series on him (which I look forward to) The other thing is, why did eastern eu. become revisionist? For example Kadar or Kruschev? Thanks in advance comrade.

What's the difference between labor and labor power?

Another banger from Finbol. Every employee, whether hourly or salaried, has to sign a contract with capitalists or petite capitalists. I like calling it "theft through contract", the binding legal document that gives the employer the right to do whatever the he/she wants to within legal bounds up to dismissal without reason. That is only possible under a capitalist controlled government and a capitalist controlled government will always have weak or ignored labor laws. It is hard these days to raise class consciousness considering that revisionism, which is capitalist concepts introduced into Marxist concepts, has weakened the Marxist concept of the workers collectively owning the means of production and distribution and having a workers state. We see China has exploitation of workers and profit making by the capitalists class both foreign and domestic. Even state own enterprises has exploitation of the workers. Yet, far too many ML's have fallen for the facade of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics". You speak of Sinified socialism. There is nothing of the sort in nature. There is no Russian, English, French, German, Italian socialism, as much as there is no Chinese socialism. There is only one Marxist-Leninist socialism. It is another thing, that in the building of socialism it is necessary to take into consideration the specific features of a particular country. Socialism is a science, necessarily having, like all science, certain general laws, and one just needs to ignore them and the building of socialism is destined to failure. -Joseph Stalin, From the Conversation with the Delegation of the CC CP of China in Moscow

What does it mean to "abolish the value form"? My understanding was that socialism entails a transition from production for exchange-value to production for use-value. I'm not entirely clear on what it means to abolish value entirely.

slaaaayyyyy

Dear finbol. Persian soviet socialist republic/Tudeh party video. -yours truly

Ei kaikki voi olla yrittäjiä. Jos kaikki olisi yrittäjiä kuka tekisi voiton yritäjille. Ei kukaan. Kapitalismi on täysin järjetön järjestelmä.

Good video

May I ask why you choose this book to make such a long series about? Its great I enjoy it!