Don Lavoie: The original goal of marxism

[@jacobbritton7359]

I've seen many lectures critiquing Marx and socialism. But this is BY FAR the best. It goes into alienation, labor value, commodity production, etc. . This guy is brilliant.

[@Tranzdog1]

So marx's was highly intelligence, lazy, wanted to set around ad tell other people what to do as they took care of him?

[@hardinmichael1981]

Exactly what he did all his life. He had to leech off his CAPITALIST friend Engels.

[@jayraskin]

Yes, in a sense, Lavoie may be substituting his own personality for the personality of Marx. We should know that Lavoie studied under Israel Meir Kirzner, the rabbi and talmudic scholar.Kirzner studied under Rabbi Isaac Hutner,

[@DrCruel]

No wonder people in Hollywood identify so strongly with him.

[@PJAlaska]

Like Rousseau, he neglected his children and his debts. Aside from some of his writings, he certainly was flawed. So many these days hold him with such deference. As if he was peerless

[@Matt-zp1jn]

⁠​⁠@@jayraskin Wow didn’t realize Don Lavoie studied under Rabbis’ who were Talmudic Scholars like Kirzner, Hutner, etc. Marxism has real connection with Talmudism. 😮

[@QB.113]

It astounds me how often I watch clips of brilliant philosophers, economists, political theorists, etc from the 70s to the late 90s utterly refute the statistical, theoretical, and logical bases of statism (including, but not limited to, Marxism), and how few people have absorbed the lessons of history. This is why we need school choice. US schools have fallen dramatically in three generations-in part-because of bureaucratic and federal BS, so now kids are taught Howard Zinn instead of being exposed to complex ethical, economic, and philosophical concepts that formed the basis of natural law/Western Civ. How many teachers tell their students Democrat controlled cities and states have ballooning pension crises (in part, caused by teachers)? How many tell their students our Progressive Era/New Deal/"Great" (We Live in a) Society legislation will bankrupt our country in a few decades and saddle future generations with tens of trillions in debt? How many brush over the history of Democrats linked to racism or Marxism linked to anti-Semitism? Everyone who wants smaller government is a National Socialist ("reactionary" is the NPC retort), but it's peachy keen if you're an avid Marxist! Give that QueerPanGenderMarxiSociology Dynamics professor federal funding for her research! Taxpayers actually pay for the propagation of this lunacy, but there is so much fat in the federal budget it's difficult to find where to start.

[@Saber23]

Are you seriously stupid enough to think democrats in the US are “marxists” 🤣

[@herbrichmound7418]

Truth about a fantasy set of economics that result in poverty for all except for the chosen few at the top.

[@zacharywheat6371]

Bruh, you just described capitalism.

[@jonnyd9351]

⁠@@zacharywheat6371Yet the median wealth and income per person has always been highest in capitalist economies. Most socialists nowadays don't care to increase the wellbeing of the people, they just care to equalize the people. "Who cares if the people have had their disposable incomes doubled when the upper class has had their incomes triple!"

[@Matt-zp1jn]

Hyper crony capitalism that has been rigging psuedo “Free Markets” within hidden Corporatocracies are destroying the economies and the middle classes around the world.

[@dkudlay]

@@zacharywheat6371yeah these people all have STOCKHOLM syndrome. They love those who abuse them and hate those who tried to free them. Thats why America has no hope or future. Its a concentration camp with enhanced feeding schedule.

[@johnwebb9225]

😂​@@zacharywheat6371

[@jamesrice6096]

I know people and relatives who've lectured me on socialism. The longer I listen to them, the more they describe the rules and human nature being dictated by themselves. I think that this is socialisms trap, and why it always results in enforcement from the barrel of a gun.

[@kimobrien.]

The American Imperialist built the fist nuclear weapons and used them on people.

[@chessenthusiast]

Not at all like capitalism. No barrels of guns needed to keep people in line there, no sir-ree.

[@Saber23]

All ideas require enforcement with arms you moron, it’s just that socialism takes that and puts it on steroids

[@freedommascot]

Beautiful talk! So lucid and concise.

[@galacticambitions1277]

Marx thought the final stage of history would be stateless. It's hard to envision how he could have had central planning without a state.

[@PoyoUws]

You didn't read the book man , central planning is for the transitionary fase between capitalism and communism

[@ellow8m]

with ai

[@Matt-zp1jn]

AI is on the way, especially to Western countries sadly. Add in UBIncome, endless entertainment, bread & circuses, and consumerism and the West may likely start to lose it’s desire to work and produce, which will usher in State run Central planning in the future. Especially if corporations or governments own the majority of prime fertile Farmland, because then they can dictate artificial famines to depopulate and control the masses! This is why Gates bought up so much prime farmland in usa, and why russia is taking back prime farmland in ukraine, etc. So in the future they will be able to manipulate the masses towards communism, while maintaining their corporate oligarchy and elite wealth for themselves.

[@Saber23]

That’s a long story about his weird philosophy

[@Saber23]

@@ellow8m that’s not what Marx thought you absolutely donkey

[@sussylh4124]

F Marx till the end of the world

[@Saber23]

Grow up

[@r3mote]

So long as government consists of fallen man or machines built after fallen man’s own image, we are simply debating methods of managing people as they build their own prison.

[@zeroonetime]

HISTORY AND FACTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS, VERBAL AND WRITTEN.

[@Saber23]

Yeah and history shows that both communism and capitalism are utter failures

[@f.e.free4a25]

It's literally an outline of world enslament don't fall for any obfuscation

[@DR_Neal_Rigger]

Great breakdown.. And killer stache 👍..

[@lucasng9617]

It is interesting that Marx wasn't saying what a revolution should do. He was making a theory of history, arguing that a revolution would happen as a consequence of capitalist contradictions. But his description of communism is a system without a central authority, is a self-organized democratic system, organized by people. The irony is that free market with individual liberties achieves that better than any attempt of an intermediate socialist state. In order to fight capitalism, socialist states sacrificed everything socialism originally stood for. It became a militarized system of concentration of power. Socialism failed because they put the rejection of market above the goal of attaining a free, democratic system.

[@kimobrien.]

Just 90 miles away from the most powerful Empire in world history sits Cuba and the the 1959 Revolution that is still making history.

[@comradelupe6976]

So for anyone who got tired of listening to this guy, because some of you commented that you are, I decided to leave a summery for you.. he started off giving a fairly good explanation of Marxism. Said that because his foundation was not axiomatic(My word) then the system falls if any aspect is proven wrong. He then goes on to explain (not really demonstrate, but that's ok) that central planning doesn't work, and cites USSR... that's it. I was very hopeful at the beginning

[@he1ar1]

the true interpretation of socialism from marx is that socialism can only succeed and therefore only can exist and should only be defined by economics. there exists in our economy various forms of income and according to marx these interests lead to conflict since their interests are opposed. Marx concluded that Hegel analysis showed that this would lead to socialism, inevitably. It can not be stopped and will happen in its own time. or marx failed to understand the true nature of conflict in capitalism and it might not be between workers and bourgeois. The conflict of the worker and their master has always been there, it is not specifically capitalist. Thomas Jefferson wrote about the classes of wolves and sheep before marx was even born.

[@bluewater454]

Anyone who claims that Marx merely presented a criticism of capitalism without giving an alternative or solution has never read chapter 2 of Communist Manifesto.

[@jerometurner9642]

If you base your worth or anyone else's on how much money you/they have you are cold and dead inside.

[@Shadowfanification]

At 8:30 the speaker references someone called Roberts of something could someone tell me who he actually meant I would like to look into his work on alienation.

[@adamgibbons8237]

Paul Craig Roberts. He has a book called 'Alienation and the Soviet Economy: Toward a General Theory of Marxian Alienation'.

[@learkingofalbion8520]

Marxism was not simply a critique of capitalism and some vague generalities about socialism (a case made well enough here). Marxism was also about a dialectic materialistic view of history -- a history devoid of the notions of language (culture/nationality), race and religion as motivating factors for human behavior. Marx was one of the dumbest nuance-strippers there ever was. Dialectical Materialism was a notion that was worth looking at in an isolated way -- but then reintegrating the findings into more traditional and real ways of looking at national and local interests. No integration was attempted, for unknown reasons -- and the result was an ideology so stripped of reality and nuance that it fueled absurd logic sociological destruction of most decent cultural ideals that it touched. There is more, but this is not the forum.

[@carlwhite4233]

Actually an Interesting point...unlike most of this drivel. Thanks. Marx's biggest intellectual impact on the world is the social sciences trying to integrate his materialist methods of explaining social phenomenon. I wonder how many of these other fields have adopted something like what you suggest is necessary.

[@fishhunter3346]

What was "Capitalism" in Marx's time? Was it similar to today's "crony capitalism"? Was capitalism, in that time, often monopolized industry?

[@kimobrien.]

The Paris Commune of 1917 lasted 70 Days. The Soviet Union 70 years. The 1959 Cuban Revolution 65 years and counting. "Che Guevara on Economics and Politics in the Transition to Socialism" by Carlos Tablada.

[@henrywolf5332]

How’s that alienation working out for Cubans?

[@kimobrien.]

@@henrywolf5332 As Fidel stated. "There will be a revolution in the United States before there is a counter revolution in Cuba."

[@paulgoodridge2269]

The Bronze Age economy I say would be the best example of a planned economy working. mainly because of how it was planned not that it was planned. the way the Bronze Age economy was planned was horizontal, not vertical. Mark's focuses on the vertical planning strategy where the state plans out the entire economy. the Bronze Age did so horizontally where they planned what went where and the local administrators decided what went where on their level.

[@The_Scouts_Code]

@18:47 though....

[@LAZARUSL0NG]

Never understood why people waste so much time with Marx. He was obviously correct to some degree in his description of the dynamic of tension between the goals of owners and workers. Owners want the most work out of the workers for the least payment. Workers want the greatest return possible for their labour. This is obviously true to some degree, even if he grossly oversimplified. He then predicted that this tug of war will necessarily go more and more in favour of the owners until finally the conditions of the workers will deteriorate to such a point that they will revolt. This is also probably somewhat correct, we’ve certainly seen situations like this play out to this point historically. Thing is, the utility of Marx (beyond highlighting that forces such as these are probably at play) is zero. Marx’s writings do not constitute a comprehensive instruction manual for revolution and the reorganisation of society. They are detailed but groundless conjecture based on gross features of incomprehensibly complex and subtle systems. Marx was undoubtably a powerful intellect. So was Pliny the elder, but I’m not going to waste my time reading up on Pliny when someone I care about falls ill; he didn’t have the data and his extensive ramblings on medicine were, predictably, hysterically ridiculous. Yes, Marx was attending to a field of understanding that is critically important, but the only sensible injunction I ever thought could be inferred from his writing was: ‘Go and find out what’s really going on, our continued existence will depend on getting this stuff right!’

[@karamlevi]

LAZARUSL0NG many great thing in life are opposites. The ultra productive workers end up becoming a boss or owner because they get n understand high effectiveness.

[@LAZARUSL0NG]

No doubt. There’s a lot going on. That’s why anyone making moves because they read Marx and think they therefore now know what needs to be changed and how they need to change it, is a dangerous fool.

[@Matt-zp1jn]

The workers are owners. They own the lifeblood of the economy, which is their body, mind, soul, and labours. The Means of Production is each and every human being, their actual blood, sweat, and tears. The elites, oligarchs, and corporations have commodified the energy of man into monetary and stockmarket value, that they then artificially manipulate to drive down or suppress the value price attributed to mans certain skills, jobs, careers, etc.

[@crazygeorgelincoln]

Smells like west European situation.

[@IClassStruggle]

Who can speak of Marxism if they haven't read all five volumes of Hal Draper's masterful overview?

[@IClassStruggle]

Ellen Meiksins Wood is love, Ellen Meiksins Wood is life.

[@Evil0tto]

Anyone who wants to speak of Marxism.

[@ImNotJoshPotter]

Based in this guy's hairline I bet he has a fucking amazing personal library.

[@jayraskin]

The commentators are not understanding the radical nature of Don Lavoie's point of view. He is saying that all so-called Marxist countries (Soviet Union, Cuba, China, etc.) up to now have been state-capitalist countries (at least since 1922). He is saying that Marx is more radical than this. He is saying that Marx was the ultimate capitalist. He is saying that Marx was so capitalist that he wanted to extend capitalism from the factory to the state and beyond. Under this proposition any criticism of Marx is a criticism of capitalism.

[@jeupater1429]

You should keep the audio but replace the visual aspect of these old videos. Dude has good points, but his image isn't going to convince anybody

[@Dandroid5000]

Have you ever considered the possibility that there might be individuals in this world that aren't as superficial as yourself?

[@karamlevi]

Dandroid5000 listen 👂 dandruff brain 🧠 looks make a difference in teaching n influence. Hate nature if you like. Are you new?

[@karamlevi]

Excellent comment

[@jeupater1429]

@Bill Whittaker intelligent people don't care. I don't know if you've looked around recently though, our society isn't exactly teeming with such individuals

[@jeupater1429]

@Bill Whittaker it's just a question of how to wake people up. Dumb people have a lot of power in our world unfortunately and they're very good at using emotional arguments to sway moderates

[@karamlevi]

Yes, elimination of meritocracy and any selling, wheeling dealings or the like based on time. I do a hour, you do a hour... sameness. Anything else is considered robbery or trickery. So, this being basically “fair” we should abandon all levers since they “skew” a objects true weight and the lever does more than others with less there fore is just unfair trickery... Maxism says you with the clever mind should be judged the same with you with the numb mind however clever minds require more clever rewards... A clever mind can pick fruit better, and higher than the numb mind... How do we rectify this clever mind picking high fruit??? Force this mind to give the high fruit... Well I give naturally and share abundantly but not all wants what I valuably give... We value things differently. I value capitalism but I do not value cronyism, theft un-merritous activities regardless of market or country.

[@godswarriors7543]

Jesus is The Word, John 1:1-5 The Word God spoke: Exodus 20:1 The Word God wrote: Deuteronomy 4:13 and The Word God made flesh John 1:14. He is our example of The Trinity. Yes, those Ten Commandments is Jesus. When God tells us in Deut.6:8-9 to bind and wear His Word He is placing us in His Son, Jesus. Jesus keeps the custom by asking those who love Him to "keep" His Words even as He kept His Father's. So if you obey God, and love Jesus, one would "keep" both the law (Ten Commandments) and the testimony (Sermon on the Mount) as instructed in Deut. God will preserve life, Jesus protects it. They will keep all evil from you. Put the armour of God on all those you love. May the Spirit/voice of both The Father and The Son go with us all, for from the heart the mouth speaks. Let the Law that hung on the cross and the Law written in your heart not just guide you, but lead you and your loved ones. As Paul would say, put on Jesus. Psalms 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. May we learn to do God’s will with the help of Jesus. Obey God, love Jesus and may we all stand in His Day. If you believe in Jesus, put Him on.

[@hardinmichael1981]

First half of this talk was extremely boring. Stick with it. The real point is made toward the end.

[@nomos6508]

questions here: -if socialism doesn't work, how do you explain the vast technological success in USSR? the first human being who left the planet earth for space (gagarine) was a communist, from a communist country. - if socialism doesn't work, how do you explain that USSR was the second most powerful country on earth for 70 years?

[@fishhunter3346]

Forcing, manipulating, coercing scientists OR rewarding, seducing, incentivizing technological goals. That's how.

[@sanniepstein4835]

If a country murders millions of its own citizens, you need a really creepy outlook to say it works.

[@zacharywheat6371]

I'm surprised at how well Lavoie understands Marx, unlike most of Marx's critiques, he seems to have actually read much of Marx's work. However there are a number of things he gets wrong, regardless. The biggest one for sure is the transitional period, which Marx definitely talked about. Not very much- he really did believe that the nature of the transitional period was to be determined by the revolutionaries, given the material conditions of the revolution. Like, clearly a revolution in Canada would be very different from one in Nigeria. Here's a pretty good quote from Marx: "Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." Also, his criticism of Marxists who believe that the failure of the Soviet Union does not mean doom for socialism and communism? Laughable. Marx himself talked about the failure of the French Revolutions, and used the term "Bonapartist" to refer to those like Napoleon Bonaparte, who would lead a counter-revolution by co-opting the revolution itself. To him, such a failed revolution was best used as an example, on how revolutions of the future should operate. And if you don't want to look at it through a Marxist viewpoint, just consider the French revolution itself. It was co-opted by a tyrant, and failed to establish egalitarian democracy. Oh no, I guess we should give up on democracy because we tried once and it failed. Kind of a silly way to look at it, right?

[@Bebopin-69]

Communism, socialism, marxism, all end up being the supreme representation of brutal lawless capitalism: all wealth going to one person which happens to be the socialist in chief. Regulated (as to prevent derailments) capitalism is the best system so far

[@The_Scouts_Code]

This shouldn;t be as boring as it is... I think it's his incessantly droning voice - He reminds me of the stereotypical dorky professor they channel in cartoons to invoke feelings of intolerable boredom.

[@comradelupe6976]

MyLifeForAuir87 they're Marxist economist just as "dorky" and that is where the conversations should be had.. not at the level of undergraduate colleges, and KZbin channels

[@comradelupe6976]

I only with he explained more of Marxist economics. I can tell that he knows more than the argument he's making, but the only thing he concedes is that marx was consistent and coherent... nothing else. He must've purposefully left out all of the things his audience is to stupid and lazy to read for themselves.. that pretty evil if you ask me

[@sirellyn4391]

At that time, most of Marxist economic fallacies were well known. To the point of not even discussing. The ideas themselves were that ridiculous. It would be like talking about weather formation and having to pause to explain that water can make things wet.

[@comradelupe6976]

Sirellyn Y then why admit his superb consistency, then only claim 1 thing wrong. He's not being intellectually honest, it seams

[@sirellyn4391]

@@comradelupe6976 It seems like he's trying to take the "safest" road possible. The one which could offer the least amount of disagreement. This is only a guess, I can't read the guy's mind. Marx got a few insights correct, but he got nearly every suggested correction to them wrong. On theories that have been proven wrong in his own time no less. (The iron law of wages is a great start.) Marx wrote his work rather generally, so if you are being incredibly technical and giving him every single benefit of the doubt imaginable, you can technically say he didn't say that. He's an example: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." He didn't explicitly say they SHOULD revolt, or that they SHOULD take over the world. He phrased as if they will. So if they do it, it's not he who suggested it. (Yet he heavily implied it.) He also never outright used any should for violence, yet he both heavily implies it, and it's the only way for communists to get what they want. Something he knew full well. If you read Marx's history, from letters from his family no less, you'd see he was a pretty big weasel.

[@comradelupe6976]

Sirellyn Y I'll give you the letters completely, because I haven't read any of his private work. As regards the revolutionary aspect, there are a few things to say, but the simplest response is Lenin as well as other Marxist agree he was wrong, and that a better way would be political.. But I disagree mainly with how people read Marx. He did build a system which comes with the problem of not focusing enough on single problems.. But people never address capital (or various economic text). What I mean is people focus on the revolutionary aspect. When it comes to economics, they say something very unwarranted, for instance; marx didn't believe in supply and demand... which he actually agreed with in the first couple of pages of capital

[@sirellyn4391]

@@comradelupe6976 Marx didn't build a system. He suggested a number of ways to run things, in a way that opposed capitalism. (Or the problems he attributed to it.) These ways were incredibly fluid. If he had created an actual "system" no one could have stated "that wasn't true communism." without testing it against exactly what Marx had written. Hence why so many people affirm he's beliefs have never been tested. Over time nearly all variants of his theories HAVE been tested. And they are all bad. Some worse than others. The revolution aspect is likely the worst. That's been tried in many places. The USSR was the first notable one. And they honestly followed things as well as they could have. But there's a few problems. 1.) People don't like giving up what they worked for. What do you do with them? Exiling, and prison were tried. People fought obviously. Death and torture ensued. They even tried "work camps" to force them to become what they considered as worker. They were treated terribly. 2.) The incentive problem. You can see this in any company with a strong union. If everyone is going to get the same no matter how hard they work, why would someone work so much harder, when the slacker is getting the same amount? They wouldn't and they learn quickly not to. So how do you incentivize someone without offering more? (In some cases the USSR DID offer more, but it was rare) You threaten them. What happens if production is still extremely low? You ramp up the punishment. This happened in Cambodia, North Korea, China and Cuba as well. It quickly become punishment is the only thing that exists, it's rampant and you want to avoid it. But that's all you have to look forward to. There's so many various other problems as well. Those are at least 2 that people don't often think too deeply on. The BEST possible places for communism is in communes. Everyone starts off willing. And it's still pretty bad. You get crazy personality cults, as social influence is the only thing that matters. Everyone races to take the easiest job. There's certainly no incentive to help after the first few months if it's something no one really wants to do. Communes in 1st world nations become like mini 3rd world islands. If you really think Marx had some good ideas, there are hundreds of communes to choose from. Try living in the best one you can find for a couple of months. You'll quickly realize how bad his idea were. www.ic.org/directory/communes/

[@PatrizioNapoleone]

This is such a poor illustration of Marxist concepts - e.g you cannot speak of commodities in the production process because you cannot speak of abstract labour. M-C-P-M was not Marx’s schema. To become a commodity or object of value a social process beyond production is necessary.

[@TS-00]

Capitalism is good, when the most wealthy do not own more than 10x the those that have a minimum of 5x the cost of living.