Guide to Marxist Economics - Ep 5. Fall of Feudalism & Rise of Capitalism

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

*The video covers the following topics:* -Primitive Accumulation (enclosure acts, colonialism) -Formation of the proletariat & capitalist class -Overthrowing feudalism (Peasant wars & boirgeois revolutions) -Economic theories during feodalism & rise of capitalism -Birth of socialist theories

[@kevintewey1157]

Thank you for doing this outline right off the bat I missed that the main subject at the beginning was generally primitive accumulation

[@ChristopherBower]

Firstly, moi moi and thank you always for all your work on these videos. The main reason I'm reaching out, though, is that I just moved to Finland from Iceland and am curious if you have any recommendations for me to find local groups to get involved with and meet some people through? Or even just some places to get to know people that might be more like-minded is golden, too. We bought a small house on a lake more out in the wilderness in North Karelia, just Northeast of Joensuu in a little village called Sotkuma, to give a reference for where we are. You're also always welcome to visit if you ever were in the area! Anyway, thanks for your time, and I do hope to hear from you.

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

@@ChristopherBower Moi moi. From Iceland huh? Do you speak Finnish at all?

[@ChristopherBower]

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 I don't speak Finnish and am just trying to hold on to my Icelandic for now. However, my partner is a Finn (born and raised in Hammaslahti) and acts very kindly as my general translator, teaching me the much cuter "mie" and "sie" dialect and whatnot. I get by in reading Swedish for grocery store runs. Other than that, I'm fucked.ha I am originally from the States, but I left happily about a decade ago to Tajikistan, then Iceland where I went to study and stayed. We moved here a couple weeks ago because we found much cheaper options for buying a small house and bought this back in October but were just waiting for the academic year to end at the school I was teaching at in Iceland. I'm still very much in "settling" mode but looking mainly to meet politically minded people as quickly as possible to establish a better friendship community for myself - especially one where my political nerdery can be front and center. So, I'm open to anything really! And a huge thanks upfront for taking the time to respond!

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

@@ChristopherBower ​ ​ I suggest check out KTP, the Communist Workers' Party / Kommunistinen Työväenpuolue. Its a Marxist-Leninist party. We don't have party organizations in every city, but you can join your nearest organization. At the very least I encourage you to subscribe to the KTP newspaper (Työkansan Sanomat) and also check out articles on the KTP website. I recommend reading our party program. Unfortunately the newspaper and our program are both in Finnish (though I can probably get an English copy of the program for you!) Also, this is very annoying but our website is having some temporary problems and that is why you need to use wayback machine to access the program: web.archive.org/web/20211130200409/www.ktpkom.fi/asiakirjat/ktpn-periaateohjelma-2006/ Here is the website: www.ktpkom.fi/ Your partner can probably help you read them. To become a party member you need to accept our program and accept party rules. You also need to pay membership dues (the amount is small, and depends on your income). We also like to talk with new recruits before we accept them, just to see what kind of people they are. If you are interested, I can help you with that later and talk about it. We can send you some free copies of our newspaper and other materials to check out. If you want I can later help you with that as well. KTP also has a bunch of activity, demonstrations, events and also online courses (though vast majority in Finnish) and I can later get you involved in some of that stuff if your interested. You can email me at [e-mail] or you can talk to me on discord (link in the video description).

[@sinthoras1917]

12:12 Lenin actually talks about this in Imperialism, some colonies (like Namibia) were not profitable to Germany as a whole, but very profitable to the investors who invested there (Parenti talks about this too also). Effectively the populations of imperialist countries in certain times have to subsidize the colonial exploitation profits of its ruling class. And some colonies (again, Lenin in imperialism) were occupied in order to turn them profitable later on, so to say speculative colonies, that had to be occupied before someone else did. And ofc there were some colonies that were mostly occupied for strategic political and military reasons, essentially a colony that didn't turn a profit so that the colonial system as a whole could yield higher ones.

[@BrunoSantos-lm1pz]

Thanks for posting this, i was about to post it myself

[@JohnT.4321]

Your work is appreciated Finnbol.

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

happy new year comrade

[@JohnT.4321]

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Same to you comrade! 😁

[@coalhater392]

Loving the series series comrade.

[@anglo-irishbolshevik3425]

The working class is the gunpowder, knowledge and education is the spark. When the working class and peasantry of the world get to grips with the truth there will be a revolunary explosion that will sweep away capitalism and imperialism and then the rising star of socialism and communism will usher in a new beautiful dawn for mankind. Love you comrade for helping to provide the spark. A worker.

[@vashlash6870]

Keith Woods did a great video on the rise of Capitalism. It's a good video to share with those who are more right wing. Keep of the good work Finnish Bolshevik. Your debate against academic agent, Sargon of Akkad, and that Rando was really great. You have the patience of a saint.

[@IndigenousCommunist]

Even though this series doesn't get as much attention as other series on your channel, I think that this is one of your best series so far, and is very informative. I also wanted to ask 2 things: 1) Are you also aware of the text Fundamentals of Political Economy? It was a sort of text book published in revolutionary China during its cultural revolution in 1974. It follows very similarly the topics presented in the Soviet textbook, but it also takes into considerations the critiques that Mao had about the second half of the Soviet textbook, which are laid in Mao's Reading Notes On The Soviet Text Political Economy. I think that the Chinese textbook has some strong suits over the Soviet one because it touches on things like social-imperialism and what not, but I wanted to know what you thought about which textbook was better. 2) If you decide to continue this series to such a point until it's socialist parts, would you ever consider including the Chinese textbook's parts on social-imperialism and socialism as well? If not, would you perhaps also include Mao's notes on the later chapters?

[@kevintewey1157]

Capitalism also profited from colonialism by continuing to hold these countries back ( listen to Michael parenti ) and thus removing competition for the future

[@anglo-irishbolshevik3425]

Kevin: And by destroying the indigenous industrial and commercial base of the colonial countries it made those counties poor and dependent - eg India and Ireland.

[@kevintewey1157]

@@anglo-irishbolshevik3425 yes, also, ty

[@ItsOgre]

These are a fantastic resource. Really appreciate you putting these together.

[@nomanor2664]

Could you do a video on Trofim Lysenko? He’s used inside (mostly) liberal scientific communities as a blunt against Stalin and the Soviet Union in general. It’s a topic that deserves a more well-researched and historical context-aware response.

[@RainbowMuse2]

Looking forward to the next one comrade. Fantastic work on this series. Once it is complete it will be very useful for educating the people.

[@nateisawesome766]

OH MY GOSH YAAY!!! FINALLY 🥰

[@ericklopes4046]

I'm learning lots with this series. Great work, FinBol!

[@mateusgabriel3013]

Baby, wake up, the Finnish Bolshevik new video is up.

[@jacobprout5097]

This series is great and has been a great resource for me personally as I've found less and less time to read.

[@daveschrdinger]

@TheFinnishBolshevik, what about demonstations and protests against NATO? What does people in Finland do?

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

We are trying to continue the demonstrations. We will continue in some form no matter what.

[@daveschrdinger]

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404, be careful, be save, be alive. Hell no to NATO.

[@olefischel4988]

Putin agree with that.

[@daveschrdinger]

@@olefischel4988, are you afraid of him more than WW3?

[@olefischel4988]

@@daveschrdinger Putin invads Ukrain and creates tension. Also threate Nato with nuklear Wapons . A lot of People fear WW3 . Thats why Nato expansion is dangerous. Interesting Logik. Putin is the person who startet the War and maybe WW3 . Nato dont. So why fight Nato when Putin is the Problem. No Putin (or sucessor) no WW3.

[@thcalicia]

Can't wait for part 6 talking about what leads up to current day capitalism would be a great topic

[@Deckbark]

like

[@vladmirdimitrilennin3903]

Hi finish Bolshevik! I'm a Marxist, not necessarily a Leninist, nor an anti-Leninist either. I'm a huge fan of your work, especially your more well-made ones. I should also say that I am a very religious person myself. I also have learnt from people who have degrees on religious studies like Lasley Hazelton, and Reza Aslan. When I watched your videos in pregur-u, as well as your other videos where you talk about religion including your video critiquing new atheism. Something that I noticed between you and your friends, is that you guys are really smart when you talk about atheism. But are really dumb when you talk about religion. Again, this is not an attack on you guys, but as a religious comrade myself I was a little dis-heartened. It doesn't seem you guys have any knowledge but the history and evolution of monotheism, or any clue about biblical humor, as well as biblical criticism. It's a shame considering, most of these religions were born with strong anti-class and profit attitudes. But grew to become more supportive of them over time. As Hazelton pointed out, Judaism started out as a protest against the corruption of kings, Christianity (well Jesusesism really), started out as a protest against corruption brought by roman occupation of the Israelites. Basically anti-imperialism. And Islam started out as a protest against corruption as well as greed of the Meccan elite. The Mecca revelation are denouncement of greed, and support for people who are outside of the ruling class, like widows, orphans, slaves, and so on. As well as gods promise to punish those elites and anyone who is a member of a ruling class but does not care for general people. To use Hazelton again, Muhamed was forced out of mecca, gone into exile, then he built a system in medina, that did help the people of need, Muhamed would have not won against mecca without the help of the lower classes, like the slaves for example. Not to mention, the system that Muhammed created was destroyed by the Umayyads who adopted a system based on the Iranian, and roman empires at the time.

[@Cybersyn]

Dope!

[@electronicraisin5956]

im not first

[@komarovosevastopol]

I have a question about the DDR comrade that I cannot seem to find. How did they deal/rehabilitate nazis after ww2. Did they do it Barbara style or was there some sort of re-education centers?

[@kazisiddiqui6435]

I don't believe the narrative that colonies were "unprofitable". To understand why, you only need to remember that money is not natural. The colonies were essential for obtaining raw materials like cotton. Those raw materials, the products of the colonies, then "cost" whatever the colonizers said they did. Eg. To make sure that India produced cheap cotton, the British deliberately destroyed the native textile industry, etc. Suppose someone breaks into your house, kills your family, demands that you sell them all your possessions for $1, sells those on the market for $10,000, uses it to buy a load of bling, calls you a barbarian for not having any bling, and then hires a bunch of idiot math professors to write economics textbooks proving that this burglar is the epitome of civilization. That was colonialism.

[@derpjesus3468]

Kazi Siddiqui Imagine seeing the state abuse their power like this and still being in favor of increasing federal control of our lives (socialism) I don't want to pay taxes and I don't want a state institution controlling my life outcome. Hence why I oppose socialism... Lastly, regulation is de facto ownership... I don't want a progressive tax system... I don't want to be taxed at all.

[@kazisiddiqui6435]

@@derpjesus3468 And what army is going to stop the state from doing what it wants? It's business leaders who often convince the state to start wars to protect their interests. I think studying macroeconomics in light of the facts established in grand strategy and business disciplines paints a very different picture of market relations. If you're interested, this is as brief as I can make it: The problem with radical individualism is that for anyone to be successful in their independent business, someone else has to buy their products. For essential industries like food and housing, these others are mostly people who are only financially stable enough to be reliable employees and customers, not large scale business owners. (Thanks to economies of scale, mass production routinely outcompetes artisanal producers.) Roughly, the next part of the argument goes like this: Since profit = revenue - expenditure, for any business to be successful, its employee/customer relations must suffer a a loss in the value transaction. Moreover, selecting businesses for profitability causes new value entering the market to be sucked up by the most scalable and profitable ventures, creating a situation approximating a zero-sum game. Let the total value of the market = $100. Let's say the business owners initially control $50, and employee/customers the other $50. Unprofitable businesses leave the market, and profitable ones suck up the value. If this market is totally free, there is no redistribution. Let's say that when the owners (who need not be the same people throughout) control $99 and the employee/customers $1, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince the latter to buy enough products to keep the corporations profitable. Without profit, investment dries up and the economy slips into a depression until the market "corrects" itself. Google: business cycle. Here's the key point: For Profit businesses can only produce enough goods to maintain profitability. If they try to create general prosperity, prices will drop and they will go out of business. This is partly why all developing economies use extreme state intervention, and only begin to flirt with free market ideas after becoming developed vis-a-vis the global economy. I believe the politically neutral Geoeconomics video by Strategy Stuff discusses this in some detail. (There are exceptions like tax havens, but those are extremely small countries and never scale to larger populations. In fact, a tax haven can only exist as a trade nexus relative to large population centers.) In a way, the ideology of radical individualism is rooted in a denial of the essentially social nature of production. Of course, this picture is complicated by derivatives markets and so on, but not by much. The only way to avoid this problem is to make the employee/customers stakeholders in the profitable enterprises in one way or another. Despite all the limitations of the current system, this is essentially what happens when the people impose terms on corporations through popular vote. This problem also manifests in many different forms, and are dealt with in many different ways. For example, free market enthusiasts often complain about the state devaluing the currency. But if the value of money doesn't fall, it will occasionally be more profitable to hodl than to invest in business, sending the economy into a deflationary spiral. Capitalism supporters tell me this can be solved by fractional reserve banking. But remember that lenders will only invest if they expect a return on their investment. As depression sets in, sources of investment dry up as well. You don't have to listen to Marxists. Watch Shark Tank if you don't believe me. One way or another, the state needs to ensure that business goes on, whether by controlling interest rates, redistributing wealth, via direct corporate bailouts or an actual socialist project. This is the only way to avoid another Great Depression. Having said that, I personally prefer creating jobs in essential industries by direct democracy rather than authoritarian Communism. My actual proposal is fairly long, and KZbin comments are probably not the place for it.

[@schm00b0]

The moment you have a concentration of wealth, you get a concentration of political influence. That allows for various deals (which includes new laws and exclusivity) which bring even more wealth and power to where it has already concentrated. And that circle just keeps going on if there is nothing to curb or stop it (taxes, regulations, etc...).

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

Taxes and regulations cannot curb it because taxes and regulations are almost always created by the rulers themselves. At best the people can force the rulers to give concessions, but the rulers can reverse those concessions at an advantageous time.

[@schm00b0]

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 'Curb' was merely meant as 'slow down'. And I definitively agree with what you said.

[@georgesoap1733]

Thanks alot for that ,but i have a question ! You said that the in the end of feudalism the productive forces were not developed enough to end exploitation ... Wasn't it possible to end it by ending private property ?! And everyone works then distribute the wealth in just ? Why did societies need to wait for capitalism ?

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

For revolution people needed scientific socialism which required capitalism to develop. The proletariat needed to become a firm powerful class and also socialism requires modern industry and large production. Small production without science makes planning impossible and gives rise to capitalism. Maybe in some cases the peasant war could've overthrown exploitation, but in 99% cases it was inevitably hijacked by the bourgeoisie and only proletarian revolution could establish socialism. The peasant communes also would've inevitably given birth to differentiation and increased commodity exchange, and transformed into capitalism and not communism. Utopian socialism simply was not adequate. Its worth noting that even those communities of free peasants who were not oppressed by landlords became capitalist, because they were drawn into the commodity economy that developed into capitalism.

[@georgesoap1733]

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 thanks for your reply , so that means that capitalism was inevitable to emerge in the human society development ? And another question if you allow me , how was planning impossible before capitalism , couldn't we human plan our production and distribution through communal property of lands and production tools ? We go and work to produce then the products go to a central consumer station and everyone will get a voucher which carries the amount of wealth they get from their contribution ? Finally do you have a discord ? Would love to tell you you are the one who made it easy for me to start studying marxism , you and marxist paul , politsturm , the marxist project , 1 dime , philosophy tube ... I want to help if there is a possibility , how can i support you ?

[@georgesoap1733]

How do you explain the russian revolution in a semi feudal society where there wasn't capitalism ? Doesn't that contradicts with marxism analysis of history development ?

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

​@@georgesoap1733 1. Yes, capitalism was inevitable just like socialism is inevitable. 2. Planning was impossible in feudalism and in general before capitalism, because science and the necessary education, book-keeping, communication technology etc. only developed due to capitalism. They were not sufficiently developed during feudalism. In feudalism there weren't even true centralized states, but instead disunited vassalages and groups of relatively isolated mansions and villages, and separate city republics in some countries. 3. Russia had capitalism. It was semi-feudal, meaning it was partially capitalist and partially feudal. The cities were capitalist but there were feudal landlords in the countryside, although even the landlords were becoming capitalistic. Russia had a strong proletariat and a significant capitalist class. Lenin explained that because of imperialism, even though Russia had very backward feudal farms, in the cities there were still very modern massive factories, mostly owned by western companies that invested into tsarist Russia. Capitalism had already fully developed in the West, and thus an international working class movement and proletarian ideology (marxist scientific socialism) had been born. Marxism spread to Russia from the West, even though Russia itself was not fully capitalist yet. Because of imperialism Russia also had large factories and many proletarians, even though Russia itself wasn't fully capitalist. Basically, it was necessary for humanity to pass through every mode of production: primitive communal, slave, feudal and capitalist, but it isn't necessary for every single country to pass through all of them. Some countries never had fully developed slavery. For example Finland never had fully developed slavery, because before the primitive communal system had fully disappeared the Swedish crusades brought feudalism here, so Finland skipped mostly over slavery. Mongolia also mostly skipped over capitalism, because Soviet Russia gave them education and technology so they could directly build socialism without fully developed capitalism. But skipping any of these stages would not have been possible if some other country hadn't already reached that stage. Finland would not have been able to skip slavery without Sweden, and Mongolia wouldn't have been able to build socialism from semi-feudalism without the help of Soviet Russia. Mongolia needed industry and Russia gave them that. Russia itself had some industry because capitalism was already somewhat developing there, largely due to Western investors wanting to exploit the workers and raw materials of Tsarist Russia. Hopefully that makes sense. 4. There is a link to my discord in the video description. 5. You can support me through patreon (link in the description) or maybe you can help me in some other way.

[@slipknotboy555]

@@georgesoap1733 There was capitalism, it was just earlier capitalism. That's why the term "semi-feudal" is used to describe Russia at the time. The bourgeoisie in Russia chose to ally with the elements of the old guard. The peasants allied with the proletariat (hence the hammer and sickle) in the revolution. It doesn't straight up contradict it, and Marxism is supposed to be "scientific" anyway - it''s not a dogma. FinnBol could probably put this better, but I think that's the gist of it. Edit: Hahahaha, he beat me to it!

[@schm00b0]

While exploitation of colonialism and imperialism have been massive catalysts and enhancers of capitalism, they did not cause it. Capitalism was emerging before and during colonialism.

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

Capitalism was slowly emerging before colonialism but in actual fact colonialism is what gave birth to capitalism proper. Before colonialist primitive accumulation capitalism only existed as a small subordinate form of economy. The first types of capital didn't even deal with production but instead with trade and banking and thus they were not an independent mode of production.

[@schm00b0]

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 I don't disagree with what you are saying, merely how you're saying it. I do still think that even without colonialism and slavery capitalism would end up as bad as it is. I see colonialism and slavery merely as an accelerant thrown on a fire.

[@kg8489]

Agricultural capitalism preceded colonialism, at least in England which is the case I'm most familiar with. Enclosure was completed by 1600. The first successful English colony wasn't founded until 1607. It was only AFTER they took over Parliament that the merchants and gentry started to push for colonialism.

[@kenseitakesi4521]

mikset tee suomeksi videoita myös? tee toinen kanava missä teet samat videot suomeksi. ku suomessa on iha vitusti vanhoja patuja jotka ei ossaa englantia ollenkaa

[@Deckbark]

Wait, the Spanish Empire was not capitalist?

[@kawadashogo8258]

It contained the seeds of capitalism but the Spanish Empire was largely feudal. In fact Spain's feudal backwardness meant that the Spanish bourgeoisie barely even benefited from the exploitation of the Americas; much of the wealth plundered by Spain went to financiers in Northern Europe where capitalism was developing at a faster pace. It wasn't reinvested into developing Spain itself. It's one of the ironies of history that Spain, which was a fortress of aristocratic and clerical reaction standing against socioeconomic progress in Europe, was essentially fueling the development of its enemies in the north of Europe where aristocratic and clerical power was in decline. The Spanish Empire ultimately bankrupted itself and was unable to continue ruling its colonies, which broke away over time. Spain played a crucial role in the development of capitalism by plundering the Americas, but that plunder benefited Northern Europe more than it benefited Spain itself, at least in terms of economic development (certainly some Spaniards got very rich off of colonial plunder, but that wealth wasn't reinvested in Spain to any significant extent).

[@lesliejulian4539]

🅿🆁🅾🅼🅾🆂🅼 🎉

[@gottfrei409]

sometimes I fantasize about being a peasant harvesting wheat for a living, sounds more peaceful than being a proletarian constantly on the verge of homelessness

[@schm00b0]

I don't like the overly simplified version of history that this video gives. Even if its goal was to give an incredibly simplified version of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, it should have taken a bit more time and nuance to explain the historical reasons behind it. Capitalism and hierarchies preceding and formed during it affect everyone within it. There is no evil mastermind behind it. It merely drives people to act a certain way. It exaggerates our worst instincts and suppresses our best qualities. It is a horrible system (and it always has been) that needs replacement (which should be obvious to everyone since Earth is burning and everything on it is suffering and dying).

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

Maybe your criticism is valid and I should've gone into more detail, but nobody said anything about an evil master mind.

[@schm00b0]

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 I was merely making my point that the system is bad, not the people within it. Capitalism is like a chronic disease that gets worse with time. Edit: What I mean to say is that people get corrupted by capitalism. It is what drives bad behavior in humans.

[@thefinnishbolshevik2404]

@@schm00b0 I agree

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

Can anyone respond to Jay Dyers analysis of professor Sutton's book "Wall Street and the Bolshevik revolution" which claims that Wall St funded the revolution and wanted them to win. /watch?v=x5ytyeicV0c&ab_channel=JayDyer

[@jeebusthegreat8819]

Sure. Even if we assume that Wall Street or the various bank houses of Europe did fund the Bolshevik Revolution, it didn’t really matter since it didn’t benefit them in any way. No banker “won” in the Russian Revolution. Also, the reason for this funding would have been to weaken Russia and use its people and resources to create more capital for the banks, or for naive ideological reasons. The first of which didn’t happen and the second of which had no real effect. So, the accusation of if the banks funded the Bolshevik Revolution is irrelevant. Historically speaking some of them probably did, as Sutton effectively argues in his book, but in the end the Soviet Union proved itself to be an enemy of the banks.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

@@jeebusthegreat8819 Actually Sutton himself argues that it was probably done to have access to Russian markets regardless of who won.

[@jeebusthegreat8819]

@@hansfrankfurter2903 Which failed, thankfully.

[@AnmlPeeweeIsHere]

Thoughts on Gramsci? Genuine question