Karl Marx on Class Struggle

Marx sees the social world through the lens of economically-defined classes in an inherently zero-sum struggle for control over the means of production. Learn more at misesvsmarx.aier.org

[@jabakasp791]

I must admit I find it this video not really representing Marx well. They seem to ignore the analysis made in his books by jumping straight to a conclusion, while these conclusions are nothing but empty without the analysis. You can't really explain such a complex issue without also touching on all the different dialectal steps he takes. When Marx says two classes have opposed interests it is explained with a formula, not just two individuals wanting something else because of an opinion. It is much more scientific and academic then just a philosophical idea

[@palimpsestransparent]

I find that Marx's views are misrepresented in this video, which makes the arguments lose strength. I am not a Marxist myself nor a communist, but I find it is only fair to represent correctly what Marx actually was proposing. It is possible to criticize the Marx standpoint effectively without the need to misrepresent what he said. For example, take the bearded guy at 2:15. He presents Marx as someone who was in favour of a socialist dictatorship and gives the possible reason as being that capitalism can be viewed also as a dictatorship. That is not at all Marx's standpoint. Marx is against dictatorships of any kind. In fact, communism, as he proposed it, not only is not a dictatorship but simply has no state, so there is not even the option of a dictatorship. What he states is that in order to reach the utopia of communism it is necessary to go through a short transitional period in the form of a socialist dictatorship. A necessary evil in order to reach the "paradise" of communism where there would be no dictatorship and everybody would be happy. The reasons for this are very convincingly argued in his works. They are too long to write here in this comment but they relate to the fact that the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) will never willingly give up their ownership of the means of production, so they have to be forced to give it up and they need to be "re-educated". After the transition period there would be no longer any "enemies" of commumism to fight, so no need to apply any force. Of course, many countries that purported to attempt communism got stuck indefinitely in the transition period of the socialist dictatorship, and some simply did not believe commuinsm was an attainable goal so accepted that socialism was the end point. Personally I find socialism to be very bad for society and I find communism to be an utopian nonsense, so I support none of the two options. But I find it is only fair to present Marx's ideas correctly.

[@westonjaxx7286]

a trick: you can watch series at flixzone. Me and my gf have been using it for watching a lot of movies recently.

[@kellenjaxtyn3487]

@Weston Jaxx Definitely, I've been watching on flixzone} for since december myself :D

[@whatifiputsomethingsilly]

Slight correction: dictatorship of the proletariat primarily meant that the state would serve the interests of the workers instead of the bourgeoisie for a short period leading up to the establishment of lower-phase-communism. Later in his life (the biggest shift seemed to be after the Paris Commune) he became more libertarian and wanted, instead of a central state to be in power for the transitional phase, democratically run smaller communes to lead the revolution, after seeing what he saw as evidence of failure of his ideas in the Paris Commune.

[@palimpsestransparent]

@@whatifiputsomethingsilly The way I understand it is that dictatorship really did mean dictatorship in the Marxian world view, and there is a real reason for a dicatorship under his conception, which is that the bourgeoisie is not going to voluntarily cede their ownership of means of production, so their possessions need to be taken by force as the only viable option and their capitalist views need to be changed, therefore a dictatorship that is to last until the bourgeoisie is fully "re-educated". Of course, we know how that looks when applied in the real world. As to Marx's shift in views to a commune based system, that I am not familiar with, but sounds interesting.

[@LordKnightcon]

@@palimpsestransparent That's sort of how Marxist-Leninist perspective works. The argument is that reform will not work, the system itself is the problem and reforms to that system are merely bandages or patches that cover up the problems instead of solving them. Revolution is necessary to replace the old system with a new one. And in any revolution there will be people who will oppose that change with violence, and so it will be necessary for those people to be oppressed until a new system is in place in which they cannot impose their ideals on others any more. In this context, those people are capitalists which refuse to give up their controlling interest over the means of production, because they see it as their right and privilege to exploit the labor of others for profit. Also, the word dictatorship has a negatively charged connotation because we associate it today with authoritarian systems where one party-- or more frequently, one person-- maintains absolute control over the government. In Marx's time when he was writing, "dictatorship" really just meant, "from those whom come the dictates." This is from the Latin "dictare" which just means "dictation" or in modern parlance, "to lay down the authority." Hence the "dictatorship of the proletariat" just means the segment of society which is making the rules would change from the elite bourgeois to the common proletariat.

[@afonsocatarino4204]

I’m not a Marxist (I’m actually the farthest thing from) but it would’ve been better to invite Marxists to analyze this bit instead of pro-market economists...

[@johnpapola2720]

Afonso, I personally extended invites to more Marx-sympathetic interviewees than to free-marketeers. Unfortunately, even with 4-6 weeks of advance notice, I couldn't get any takers.

[@afonsocatarino4204]

John Papola Understandable. My apologies for assuming you hadn’t.

[@bihone4750]

It's easy to argue against something when you don't articulate the actual arguments at play. These pro-Capitalists are dogs who refuse to understand marxism for what it actually is, and instead rely on strawmans.

[@kurt44mg42]

@@bihone4750 Question: What's the difference between a Marxist and a capitalist? Answer: A Marxist reads Karl Marx, but a capitalist understands it.

[@bihone4750]

@@kurt44mg42 Cute joke, but I've yet to find any capitalist who has even remotely understood the simplest marxist concepts.

[@owenbenjaminshapiro6285]

Never heard of this channel before. Great thing that the rap battle video blowing up made the algorithm suggest me this

[@thefilmpoets]

capitalist algorithm

[@r.forrestblount9222]

In current America, the real control is garnered by privatized interests whose power is based on accumulated wealth and money, which has bought them control of the government. In our system, the government's role must be that of protecting the working multitudes, especially in a world of unfettered deregulation. This can be achieved by getting the influence of money out of politics. It can also be achieved by the democratization of the workplace. The result of neither of these things existing at the moment has been four decades of flat wages - failed trickle-down. Capitalism seeks its greatest profit, and the reduction of labor costs has been the prime way to increase those profits. The reduction of labor costs is the prime driver in the development of Artificial Intelligence. Yang is totally correct about the dangers of that on our society. One of the economists in this video describes capitalism as being a "team effort." That is a laughable, toothless platitude in my view. It IS a team effort in that capitalists and workers are nominally operating together on the same economic project. It IS NOT a team effort when it comes to deriving a just economic value from that "team effort." A better descriptor is exploitation. America has become unaffordable and an economically fragile environment for most.

[@itisakubrow6361]

A yes, competition is the driving factor of human creativity and ingenuity but don't worry, we're all in this together

[@thelonegerman2314]

Everyone in America is living in a Microeconomics Class, The Economy is not distributive at all,. Very much a Centralized Economy where Goods and Services, Profit And Rewards is Olny Enjoyed by A Privilege Few! In " the Monopolize Sectors" Micro-economy Example People in the Defense Sector , Which is Part Public Government Sector and Part Corporate Sectors like Large Defense Companies Ex. Boeing, MacDonald Douglas Are Usually White Male, and Military people, They Would Just Pass on the Rewards Profit, Contracts to Other " White Males" So Cronyism and Nephitism are Just Examples of the " Monopolize Sector" I'm Referring to . So Capitalism As a Equal Sustainable Economic System is Mainly a Myth

[@thomaso6763]

Good luck pal. This is the plan of the globalists/Illuminists: the destruction of religious belief: the destruction of the state and the enslavement of the mob everything to be replaced by their scientific dictatorship of the elite who move in the shadows. Don’t believe me, believe your eyes or should I say their “all seeing eye” with eventually their “risen Osiris” leading it all

[@blitz8260]

Potato’s and molasses there is a struggle between the classes

[@nestormakhno9266]

In the 4:50 range they talk about how everyone is “working really hard” and “is on the same team” despite the fact that if this is the case then why does such a massive wealth gap exist? If we were all truly playing an equal part in cooperation then why does capitalism despite producing more food than needed still allow millions to starve, despite having more empty homes than homeless people still force people to sleep on the street? If everyone is playing an equal part and there are no exploiters then there should be no exploitation, and yet that’s constantly not been the case for capitalism’s entire history.

[@deckie_]

they literally let the co-author of the book ''why socialism sucks'' go on to talk about marxism for multiple video's on end. I didn't expect any honesty to begin with.

[@nestormakhno9266]

madwtube that’s not true, just because they keep lowering what counts as poverty doesn’t mean you’re fixing anything.

[@nestormakhno9266]

madwtube historically speaking the most successful states have been lead by “socialist parties” (though many implementations of Leninism are bastardizations of socialism they’re still closer than socdems). The USSR industrialized, ended a several millennia long cycle of famines, granted women total equality, granted universal voting rights, increased rights of ethnic minorities, took children out of the fields and factories and into schools, and launched one of history’s most successful literary campaigns turning a mostly illiterate nation into a global leader in science. Not only that but it was Soviet industrialization that saved the people of Eastern Europe from the holocaust as well as general plan ost, and turned a feudal backwater into a modern industrial superpower in 2 decades. Similar things can be said about the improvement of China, Burkino Faso, and Vietnam, all of this done while cut off from most forms of foreign capital, wrecked by imperialist campaigns, and facing internal reactionary threats. No capitalist nation has accomplished a similar feat and it has left far more destruction in its wake. Such as in India and Africa where capitalism has a higher death toll than the 100 million often used for communism (though 100 million is an incorrect number).

[@r.forrestblount9222]

@madwtube , you need to tour America and speak to the many people who are economically fragile in this country, if not totally desperate. It may open your eyes.

[@thelonegerman2314]

Everyone in America is living in a Microeconomics Class, The Economy is not distributive at all,. Very much a Centralized Economy where Goods and Services, Profit And Rewards is Olny Enjoyed by A Privilege Few! In " the Monopolize Sectors" Micro-economy Example People in the Defense Sector , Which is Part Public Government Sector and Part Corporate Sectors like Large Defense Companies Ex. Boeing, MacDonald Douglas Are Usually White Male, and Military people, They Would Just Pass on the Rewards Profit, Contracts to Other " White Males" So Cronyism and Nephitism are Just Examples of the " Monopolize Sector" I'm Referring to . So Capitalism As a Equal Sustainable Economic System is Mainly a Myth

[@tomio8072]

2:30 just for anyone who wants to know further, the dictatorship of the proletariat just means that those who did not have the ownership “over the means of production” (the materials and resources put into the production process, such as labour and materials) would then get the ownership. Meaning, everyone would hold ownership over the means of production. It isn’t about who has the majority is the one who owns things, in some conceptions of socialism, those who own the means of production are the ones who operate and perform the production process, in over conceptions everyone owns the means of production. If the proletariat became the ones who had ownership, and no one else could have it, the proletariat would just become the new property owning class (the bourgeoisie). Imo, instances like the USSR started out socialist, but the traditionalist capitalist class just became the government, and thus you have state capitalism. When Marx was writing, a dictatorship was just who was ruling at that time. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is a dictatorship because they where the class who had sovereign power over the production process.

[@abbadiouf4474]

"The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is a dictatorship because they were the class who had sovereign power over the production process". Dictatorship definition from the Larousse ( a french dictionnary yes i'm french so excuse me for some of my grammar errors 😅 ) : A dictatorship is an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders and little or no toleration for political pluralism or independent programs or media. For me according to this definition a company is a very weird dictatorship. Admittedly a company seems like a governement in which citizens don't sovereign simply because they don't owe the means of production. But at the same time they can decide who govern them through voluntarily choices in the labor market thus such a dictatorship allows political pluralism a dictatorship who tolerate other political leader isn't very weird to you because i can choose my capitalist one can't choose his dictator. In addition the citizen can compete against their dictator by making their own company or can even take part to the decision by buying back stocks of their company that is to say that workers can exercise power in their company just like citizen in a democracy. Finally class struggle mean that capitalist and worker don't have the same interest nevertheless as far as i'm concerned in my company i have the same interest than the capitalist who "exploit" me in fact we both want the company to thrive that way he can make as much money as possible and i can stay as long as possible working in the company even if work harder i can manage to have a better paid relatively to my production gains and my participation in the company. In brief i'm not a poor victim who work for a greedy capitalist who want to exploit me i voluntarily work for a wonderful entrepreneur who want make his dream possible and offer goods and services in order to please a demand and me as a partner with specific skills that he don't have i help him to achieve his goals so we work together not one against the other.

[@tomio8072]

@@abbadiouf4474 I am glad that is the case for you, others perhaps do not feel the same way, and as you said, under capitalism you "pick" your dictator. Socialists want instead to do away with having bosses by democratising the workplace, which in my own opinion seems cooler tbf. Richard Wolf, a Marxist economist has done A LOT of work on these enterprises, if you'd want a balanced take on economics, also check out his worker co-op, "Democracy at work" on youtube, even if it is just to point out where he may go wrong :)

[@abbadiouf4474]

@@tomio8072 Excuse me if it's not the case for you but my whole point was that in a capitalist free-market economy the workplace is already democratic you don't work in a company by force you work in it by choice just like when you choose the candidate you want in any election which is not the case in Socialist economies the Berlin wall was precisely constructed to prevent East berliners from working in the western companies of their choice yes socialist countries were not very democratic actually. My point is not about feeling it's about fact in fact you might feel exploited in your workplace but in fact you have power depends on your position if your a manager your make most of the decisions per say cause it's your job to make decisions as a manager when your a worker your job is not to manage the company but simply work if you're not ok with that be a manager or open your own business. Furthermore in a company you have the power to negociate your income you have the power to negociate your hours you even have the power to negociate your status if and only if your capitalist think you worth it if it's not the case you can go elsewhere and negociate again with a new capitalist who will pay you better if and only if you worth it if you don't worth it according to the labor market accept it get better competences get better skills in order to serve your fellow men better. In this economy if you don't want to have a minimum wage don't have minimum skills is as simple as that. Admittedly workers should have a say in a company like in germany or in sweden but it came with a cost when you make decisions you have to face the responsabilities of those decisions and be resilient if the company is less productive less competitive and make less profit thus if it happen you should have necessarily a lower income for the sake of the company on the contrary if the company go well you get a better income it's the case in germany cause workers are resilient and have the same interests as their capitalist they're not engaged in a class struggle like labor unions in America unfortunattely when the workers are not resilient the whole company fall apart that's what happen for exemple in detroit very annoying labor unions make companies loss a lot of profit for decades so companies there decided to move elsewhere in order to find more cooperative partner to work with then detroit workers lose their jobs. The main problem is that as you know because of private property rights a company is not an actual democracy but not a dictatorship neither undoubtedly it is not run for the many by the many but by the owner for the owner in order to please customers it's a sort of aristocracy in which everyone from the workers to the CEO have a specific and different role to play and also a specific and different say in terms of the choices the company makes that's it we have not equal right in a company simply because we don't have equal skills if you really want to have a say don't fix the system fix yourself first and go learn skills that one day will give you the capabilty of run a company in the best way possible otherwise people with better skills at it will simply do the job they are talented at.

[@thelonegerman2314]

Everyone in America is living in a Microeconomics Class, The Economy is not distributive at all,. Very much a Centralized Economy where Goods and Services, Profit And Rewards is Olny Enjoyed by A Privilege Few! In " the Monopolize Sectors" Micro-economy Example People in the Defense Sector , Which is Part Public Government Sector and Part Corporate Sectors like Large Defense Companies Ex. Boeing, MacDonald Douglas Are Usually White Male, and Military people, They Would Just Pass on the Rewards Profit, Contracts to Other " White Males" So Cronyism and Nephitism are Just Examples of the " Monopolize Sector" I'm Referring to . So Capitalism As a Equal Sustainable Economic System is Mainly a Myth

[@kvothekingkiller1754]

It's bour-geoi-SIE

[@gusmcmanus6159]

I don’t see why we keep drawing the distinction between government and big industry. They are both essentially involuntary relationships for the average person

[@kurt44mg42]

Karl Marx never performed a manual day's labour in his entire life. Therefore, it remains somewhat of a mystery as to how he managed to position himself as the champion of the working classes to begin with.

[@kurt44mg42]

@Jokolo Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences. Marxism is a very bad idea: Over 100 million people from Russia to Cambodia and from China to Czechoslovakia would have agreed to that...if they were still alive today.

[@kurt44mg42]

@Jokolo Your latest comment only confirms you're just another dead-from-the-neck-up, anti-capitalist zombie who's been completely brainwashed by the fake philosopher, Marx and his de-civilising ideology. Moreover, because you've revealed yourself to be nothing more than a hopeless intellectual cripple, all you can do is point your finger at any one group of impoverished people or another around the world and childishly scream, "Exploitation! Capitalism!", whilst blissfully ignoring the fact the human race as a whole has enjoyed almost unheard of wealth and prosperity in the last 250 years than it ever did in the previous 2,500 years, all thanks to capitalism. In 1760, prior to the onset of the First Industrial Revolution, which ushered in huge advances in agricultural food production within a few short generations, the global population jumped from 770 million to 7.7 billion (90% increase) today. Again, thanks to capitalism, more people are able to feed themselves and live on this planet now than at any other time in recorded human history. Indeed, since you so obviously suffer from Marxian induced historical myopia that's rapidly shrinking whatever purports to be a functioning brain inside your skull, you're utterly incapable of grasping the simple fact that what allows to post your gibberish in this comments section on YT in 2019 is the astonishing progress that's taken place in computing technology over last 50 years, all of it, again, due to capitalism. If it had ever been left to people like you to organise society, then human civilisation would've ceased to exist a long, long time ago. Now, do us all a favour and crawl back under that pre-historic rock you emerged from and "wither away" as Marx wrongly predicted the state would when he wrote his confused collection of inane ramblings in the 19th century, at a time when much more impressive individuals were creating wealth for themselves and their fellow men under the capitalist system.

[@toddmartin7030]

@@kurt44mg42 and in our capitalist system people have not died? Capitalism creates imperialism which has killed many people. And we are still going strong with it. We fight wars in the middle East and commit war crimes to control markets in the middle East (such as oil). We will fight for disgusting people because they allow us control or influence of their market (Saudi Arabia).

[@nestormakhno9266]

kurt44mg42 Connolly alone disproves your entire theory.

[@kurt44mg42]

@@nestormakhno9266 What theory?

[@asier6734]

There has never been a society totally equal or with no classes. Marx was totally right identifying different social group interests, even if you can "educate" people to accept their position in society. That doesnt mean that position is justified in a moral sense. Many movements fought for their rights through history (including employees during the industrial revolution), achieving them in some cases. If greed was not the incentive for progress in a capitalist society, total equality could be achieved. Increase social unequality and there will be a point where "those who were educated to accept their position" wont. These people opinions are a joke and totally biased. Marx was historically-realistic and correct.

[@GeorgWilde]

"Everybody is kind of working very hard, you know." :eye blink: - Yeah even thieving is hard work, as is propaganda, or manipulation. So what you said is just truthism. So where it gets you to say it? Point of your possition should be that general objective standard of value doesn't exist, therefore markets exist and employe/employer categorization is mostly crude misinterpretation of what human actions and relationships are.

[@d34dmantwoguns]

The people that created this video are insane if they think this is a neutral or objective analysis of class struggle

[@lucascarreon4983]

I wonder what Marx would have to say about the “essential” and “non-essential” workers during Covid-19 pandemic. Because I think he might point out that both the proletariat (Essential) and the bourgeois (Non-Essential) in America have little or no connection to the means of production.

[@d34dmantwoguns]

Well I'm sure he would have said a lot of different things... A modern Marxist would probably point to the decline in entrepreneurship employment and quality of life while pointing to the record gains on Wall Street and GDP. People would say it doesn't make sense an economist would run around trying to come up with a million reasons why it's not important to pay attention to those things. If Marx was alive he would point to the velocity of money m2... The one statistic that really demonstrates that wealthy people are hoarding money.

[@user-py4oy3uk2c]

Some of these people have never read Marx. Painfully obvious.

[@thomaso6763]

Marx was hired by “league of just men” to write that thing, and who were they: Fabian socialists or Illuminists

[@jorgemachado5317]

Very good job bringing people that don't have any clue about marxism to explain this concept. Contrary to popular belief, class struggle is not a division between people, but between two different positions in society. In the capitalist society there's only two ways you can participate: You sell your labor power to a capitalist or you buy the labor power of a proletariat. That's an objective distinction between two different positions. This trade is the only trade in the capitalist system which isn't equal. Because the capitalist trade the money for the labor power of the worker. When the worker realizes the consumption of money, he will consume the exact amount he has sold. But when the capitalist realizes the consumption of the labor power, he will end up with MORE money than he invested. This strange relation in which nobody can actually see in production is the secret behind the wealth of one class that necessarily exploits another. Of course this exploitation is at the same time a cooperation between two classes. This cooperation occurs because is not possible to see the exploitation easily. That's why we have a science to unveil it

[@Fanothesilly]

And that's how you talk about the best economist the world has ever had and one of the most influential people who have moved the whole society into a mediocre explanation and discrediting everything he did.

[@ExPwner]

😂 Marx was not the best economist. He was a complete hack. How old are you like 12?

[@Fanothesilly]

@@ExPwner 18 years. And every year of in-depth political analysis.

[@ExPwner]

@@Fanothesilly clearly not. No wonder. You are 18 and think you know anything because you spent time in a Marxist bubble. You have not read one bit of Menger or Bohm Bawerk, and likely not one single economics textbook. You may as well be 12.

[@Fanothesilly]

@@ExPwner Well, from what I see, at least mature enough to know that Marx was right. And enough to know that anarcho-capitalism is unreal and the only thing it would create is a situation a thousand times worse than the current one in the world. Adding to that anarcho-capitalism and the libertarian movement are facism but without the ugly word in the name. I invite you to investigate who funds these parties and find out why most anarcho-capitalists admire Hitler, Pinochet, Mussolini and Francisco Franco.

[@michaeldowning289]

Seems a little biased

[@LeftistJesus]

You couldn't get Wolff to come talk? Gotta have a bunch of neoliberals try to describe class conflict?

[@malayangtanglaw8681]

Jesus was not a left-winger

[@LeftistJesus]

@@malayangtanglaw8681 yea, he was. He advocated that all are taken care of, and made no differentiation on how productive they are. We can argue what kind, I argue he's an anarchist, but you can't say he was a conservative, or even a liberal.

[@isimperialist]

​​​@@LeftistJesusActually the creator said in a comment thread on the video, that he invited more Marxists than Free Market people. But explained all of them declined. Also Jesus probably was a Theocrat.

[@isimperialist]

​@@LeftistJesusThe creator said they invited more Marxists than Free Marketeers. But then explained that no Marxists accepted to be interviewed.

[@DanyTheRedAnger]

Those guys talked so much bullsh@t... Thet have no ideia what Marxism (or the real world) is

[@gabbar51ngh]

You lost credibility to talk about real world if you believe in Marx's nonsense. His ideas have been discarded and debunked for over a century now.

[@DanyTheRedAnger]

@@gabbar51ngh lol sure kid

[@galoise5364]

Nonsense. Marx did not view it as a zero-sum struggle.

[@sirellyn]

There would be no need for the workers to "rise up" if they could grow their own wealth. (And they can.) So yes he describes poor solutions to fill a problem that doesn't exist.

[@jonathaslopes8038]

@@sirellyn How would they grow their own wealth if they would have to work half a day just not to starve?

[@sirellyn]

@@jonathaslopes8038 Civilization started off where people had to work nearly the WHOLE day not to starve. They found time, just a few minutes to do something that either made what they did more effective, or to do a favor for someone else. That efficiency or favor created value for themselves or others and gave them more time. The difference is they didn't have a government limiting what they got or they could give. People in China and India went from mud huts about 30 years ago to living middle class or rich. That's slowing and stopping because of Xi's interference now, but that's all from capitalism. I've lived in a country where people had NOTHING except for sand and camels and spend their whole days travelling to get food to live. And now have started businesses and have multiple cars and are well off, after ~30 years. Aside from government. What's your excuse?

[@dialecticalveganegoist1721]

There are no classes anymore, don't you see? You can talk to Elon Musk on Twitter and he even retweets the memes you made, doesn't that show that we are into it together?

[@KING-kv6cv]

No it doesnt

[@KING-kv6cv]

Elon musk could get away with a murder, you cant

[@anti6112]

@@KING-kv6cv That's the joke, mate.

[@yamnayaseed356]

3:47 Ah yes the meritocracy of the XIX century is well known XDXD what a weasel

[@000Orkarnikolla000]

Are you trying to be educational or just do some shameless pro-capitalist propaganda? It's extremely obvious and you misunderstood Marx on so many points. Next time maybe not just use people who have literally written books like "the market loves you" - GEEZ, that's next level idiotic. But then again, I wonder who founded this project ....... Laughable.

[@000Orkarnikolla000]

Glad no one's watching it lol, this wasn't even subtle.

[@isimperialist]

​@@000Orkarnikolla000The creator said they invited more Marxists than Free Marketeers. But then explained that no Marxists accepted to be interviewed.

[@juneruiz2343]

This video is disgusting lol