Adam Smith did NOT advocate for the divison of labour

True fact Lenin was Nobility, albeit lower level, but it means he was Bourgeoisie, NOT prolitariat, LOL.

Point of clarity on Marx’s theory of immiseration: Key to this theory is Marx’s concept of Relative Deprivation, "A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls” - Wage Labor and Capital (Karl Marx) Even if the standard of living of the working class improves in absolute terms, the existence of vast disparities (such as the presence of a palace nearby) means that their relative position remains low, leading to feelings of discomfort and dissatisfaction.

Of course we like the 15 minute videos. This is like ASMR for socialists! What's not to like? Also, we love the snoring dog!!

I want my surplus value.

Conceding that the LTV is obviously wrong then saying "be nice to poor little Marxy, he doesn't know any better" is hillarious 😂

This concedes that Use Value is subjective. Does Marx truly do so?

This is a poor Wikipedia style comparison... Clearly, you never read the works of either Smith or Marx.

the oppressed become the oppressors, education becomes indoctrination, proletariat becomes the serfs of the state, etc

Why do you cover marx’s right eye?

"I'll pay you $200 a day, if you show up every day." "Doesnot show up every day."

I really appreciate this series, but I can't focus because the background music & the waving of hands is constantly distracting me 😂

You're an amazing teacher

Marx's Foundational Tautology Marx writes (Chapter 24, first paragraph, Capital, 1867), "Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value." See the tautology? How did this tautology get past the initial reviews? How did this tautology survive the intervening 157 years without being discovered, except for this political scientist? This again illustrates the magnitude of the Marxist co-option of our institutions. Let's analyze the sentence's tautology... Surplus value is generated by capital, but capital is created by surplus value!

@ChapterbyChapter says in an earlier reply to me, "Well many forms of assets from the previous era could be used as capital. A very common form of that is probably land owners earning rent and then using this in the production process, but anyone with enough assets could do this really." My reply: "as capital" is not capital, because, as Marx said, "capital arises from surplus value",* and as there is no capital yet existing to generate surplus value,** your "as capital" won't generate the surplus value necessary for the capitalist mode of production to progress, because such progress requires capital arising from surplus value: "capital arises from surplus value". Thanks to your "as capital" non-solution, you have stumbled into the essence of capital, which is "saved time", where capital is withdrawn from consumption, instead used for production, resulting in a quicker turnaround for consumption items to come unto the market, hence my discovery of the "saved time" function of capital. ---------------------- * Capital, Chapter 24, first paragraph, 1867. ** "surplus value emanates from capital". -- Capital, Chapter 24, first paragraph, 1867.

Well done 👍✅

I read Adam Smith's Wealth of the Nations from beginning to end, and it seems for me that the author of this film has not the done it. Summary of A Smith's work looks here like a repetition of usually quoted and best known extracts from the book though neglect much more of deeply thought content of the book. So I recommend reading the whole book with thought.

Exploitation is huge word, Central planning is a fail everywhere. meet the new boss, same as the old boss,

❤‍🔥algorithm boost. Thank you for making these videos :0

comunism can never have freedom of the press, becase if everybody eas alliwed to talk about gow bad it is they wouldent want to do it. comunism cam never have cival liberty's, becase the government myst be able to arrest people in the middle of the night communism always must use force,

No, you can't make me.

All terrible in practice

adam smith: merit karl marx: need

“Side note he’s probably wrong and I plan in in no way explaining why to an audience who didn’t ask, now back to the…” shut up cia capitalist bootlicker and just say what’s in the book.

Where can i find chapter 3?

C/V is actually formula for calculating the capital intensity of the production, as productivity would involve output in the formula

"In the untouched wilderness of innate ambition, where courage roars louder than the winds and the law of the jungle is written by the unforgiving claws of destiny, Adam Smith, enshrined in the majestic aura of a regal lion, strides across the savannah of enterprise with a dignified grace, his mane glows like a crown of pure gold, symbolizing the radiant success that comes from the sweat of one's brow. Each step he takes imprints the legacy of unfettered opportunity and the sanctity of individual achievement upon the earth, his growls the hymns of market freedom and competition's pure doctrine. Every chase, every triumphant kill under the scorching sun, reflects the core tenets of his existence: that prosperity is forged by one's own claws, that the spoils belong to those who dare hunt for themselves. In this realm where nature's unforgiving law dictates the survival of the fittest, Smith's feast is a hallowed celebration of meritocracy, a sacred ritual where the fruits of labor are savored in their earned glory. Yet, within the dark and deceitful shadows that plague the untouched corners of the vast savannah, a figure emerges that is both foreboding and out of place - Karl Marx, the ghost of collective despair, creeps with the stealth of disillusionment, his presence a blight on the lush landscape of innovation. His philosophy, a morass of dependency and entitlement, seeks to strangle the vibrant life of autonomy and merit, to redistribute the spoils of the hunt without the sweat of the chase. In the whispers of the wind, his doctrines spread like a pestilence, aiming to corrupt the natural order with the falsehood of utopian equality. His vision, dreary and monotonous, threatens to leech the color from the world, proposing a landscape in which the lion lies down not with the lamb, but as the lamb, denying the essence of its nature. This apparition of equal misery rails against the very laws of nature, against the survival of the fittest, pushing instead for a survival of the most numerous. It represents a chilling specter of uniform mediocrity, where the exhilarating chase of aspiration and achievement gives way to the lethargic shuffle of complacency. Nonetheless, despite his attempts to blanket the world in the fog of his malaise, Marx remains a ghost among the tangible triumphs of the individual, unable to fully extinguish the fire of ambition that burns within the heart of the savanna, as Smith's roar, a clarion call to the spirits of ambition and self-reliance, pierces through Marx's murmuring shadows. It is a battle cry, celebrating the victories won by claw and tooth-by wit, will, and work. For in this primal savannah, success is not a gift to be doled out but a prize to be claimed by those daring enough to hunt their dreams under the sun of free enterprise." - Andrea Zanzotto

I’m a capitalist, always have been, always will be, I’m also open minded enough to realize that there’s other forms of economy, government and society out there that could work, I think the inherent problem in any style of government and economy will always be bad humans, and not the economic style itself. Case in point, I truly believe the United States is more corrupt now than it’s ever been, that’s not capitalisms fault. It’s bad humans. No different than Stalin or Mao Zedong. Or Hitlers so called socialist paradise. The underlying issue is always bad people.

Communist countries have lost the mind set of optimism, and enthusiasm. All technology used in communist countries came from Free Enterprise countries. In regards to religion, it is the psychie, ( Spirit), that in lightens the conscious mind. Where free enterprise is crushed so also is innovation. The Communist notion that everyone will work together for the benefit of the many will not happen. The new ruling class, communist leaders, will set the means of production has always failed each time it has been tried

I think I choose worst way to learn English .

the fetish aspect is very telling .. or opening .. doors in the closet of mind

so far .. this doesn't make marx a communist

thank you so much for this video, literally saving my ass right now

6:29 - standards of judgement by reason vs the standards of judgement based solely upon unsupported preferences and opinions

i don't understand the topic but you are so good at speaking

you are so handsome i just distract

great. keep goind, comrade

The OBAMA bible

This was way easier to digest than the manifesto itself. And why the hell do all the evil people seem to have a manifesto, I am not suggesting manifestos are inherently good or bad, just making a weird observation. Anyway, thank you, this came in clutch for a paper I have to write about this manifesto for Philosophy 101. 👍

I used this for my political philosophy test, I will update the comment when I get the grade.

There are three kinds of people: The many human animals that will never understand communism, the few human animals that only think they understand it, and the one human animal that only pretends to rule as a communist.

(Just commenting when i finish each of these videos, for accountability reasons lol)

At 3:18 is the key to marx’s biggest flaw: “Labor is the only thing that can create value.” That may be true, but marx’s failure was to define labor as only MANUAL labor. The problem is that labor comes in many forms, and, out of his blind, infantile hatred of the owning and managerial class, marx totally dismissed the MANAGERIAL labor that goes into production. Managing and organizing production is most certainly labor. It is the expenditure of energy that, in marx’s own terms, ends up embodied in whatever product is being manufactured. To deny this is the most ludicrous and infantile folly. Anyone watching this and considering the labor theory of value should also go take a look at Alfred Marshall and his Marginal Theory, which blew marx and the labor theory out of existence, and how it holds SCARCITY as a major contributor to a given thing’s value.

That was nice, thanks for video

6:40 “Marx adds the perspective of the worker who FEELS alienated by repetitive tasks”. This is just wrong. The capitalist pays the worker according to the value of his labour-power but gets the use of the workers labour. This the product of workers’ labour is automatically alienated from them under capitalism. Watch this to understand Marx: … One of the great advances of the classical school was the labour theory of value, which found its foremost advocate in the person of Ricardo. Adam Smith had established that the proportions in which commodities exchanged was the labour embodied in them. However, when he came to examine capitalist society he stumbled over the question of profit. If commodities exchanged at their value and if labour received its full value, then how did profit arise? Smith concluded that while the labour theory of value may apply in a simple society, it did not apply in the capitalist society under study. Consequently he resorted to an adding up theory of value: the value of a commodity is determined by the value of its components-labour, capital, land. Of course such a theory explains nothing for it says that the value of a commodity is determined by the value of other commodities-leaving open the question of value itself. Ricardo took issue with Smith's abandonment of the labour theory of value. He insisted that it was applicable to capitalist society and that the value of any commodity was the labour time embodied in it. On the basis of the labour theory of value he sought to explain the distribution of production among the three major classes: labourers, capitalists and landowners. He showed that the new value added by labour in the production process was distributed between the capitalists and labourers in the form of wages and profit, and that the value of the commodity remained the same no matter what the proportion of these two parts. But Ricardo was not able to explain how the law of value governed the exchange between capital and labour, that is, how it was possible for surplus value to arise on the basis of the exchange of equivalents. In his preface to Volume II of Capital Engels explains the state of economic science prior to the emergence of Marx: “The existence of that part of the value of products which we now call surplus-value had been ascertained long before Marx. It had also been stated with more or less precision that it consisted of, namely, the product of the labour for which its appropriator had not given any equivalent. But one did not get any further. Some-the classical bourgeois economists-investigated at most the proportion in which the product of labour was divided between the labourer and the owner of the means of production. Others-the Socialists-found that this division was unjust and looked for utopian means of abolishing this injustice. They all remained prisoners of the economic categories as they had come down to them.” WSWS Editorial Board member Nick Beams replies to a reader's question on the labour theory of value 29 April 2000

I don’t see what is so bad about communism.

I’m sad you didn’t even read wealth of nations. You’d see that Adam is against division of labor. His quote in the beginning is not the full extent of his position. He says that it alienates the workers from the fruit of their labor and makes men into beast. He also hates landlords and is a opponent of neoliberalism.

To each his own🎉

A little short, but not bad! good audio quality too.

Great video...I will use this in social class. 😊