PragerU’s 4 Worst Lies about Marx | Red Plateaus

In this episode, we respond to PragerU's video "Who Is Karl Marx?" ( • Who Is Karl Marx? | 5 ... )
Timestamps
00:00 - Introduction
03:05 - Part 1: Karl Marx on Why Capitalism is not Unjust
08:40 - Part 2: Karl Marx on Justice, Freedom, and Communism
15:10 - Part 3: Karl Marx on Communism
25:11 - Part 4: Karl Marx on Freedom and Democracy
40:43 - Part 5: Conclusion
Thanks to Cuck Philosophy for reading out quotes from Paul Kengor's book, thanks to our patreons over at patreon.com/redplateaus, and thanks for watching.
Twitter @RPlateaus
patreon.com/redplateaus
We have a playlist of videos that discuss Marx's ideas on freedom, capitalism, and communism here: • Marx on Human Developm...
Please note that the USSR was officially founded in 1922, and thus had not been officially founded in 1918, when the Russian civil war started.

[@bluecobra95]

lmao "we take the time to read people's work before making youtube videos about it"

[@RedPlateaus]

I mean, it's true.

[@mattgilbert7347]

ie: Marx was not a moralist. He was an Enlightenment thinker concerned with rational inquiry, analysis, understanding, and freedom of the human subject.

[@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1]

Marx wasn't an Enlightenment thinker. He was beyond the Enlightenment.

[@mattgilbert7347]

@@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1 He was part of the Enlightenment tradition and his ideas emerged from that tradition. He's Canon.

[@RedPlateaus]

He's certainly indebted to a lot of enlightenment thought, and much of early socialism draws heavily on the more radical enlightenment ideas (e.g. full freedoms of speech, press, conviction, association, democracy, feminism, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, etc.), but I'd say that Marx and a lot of other early socialists go beyond enlightenment thought in a lot ways, both philosophically and politically (e.g. their theories of praxis, class struggle, and approaches to social change).

[@mattgilbert7347]

@@RedPlateaus That's what I'd call Critique of Enlightenment.

[@mattgilbert7347]

@@RedPlateaus So in a sense he's both Enlightenment and Post enlightenment thinker.

[@willow2893]

it's.. quite something that it requires a 45 minute video to explain why a 5 minute video is wrong. thanks for doing this work, though.

[@RedPlateaus]

Disinformation works disproportionately well, sadly 😞

[@willow2893]

Red Plateaus yeah of course. just got around to finishing this one and it’s a great video. gonna do my best to commit these arguments to memory for the future. thanks again

[@AbteilungsleiterinBeiAntifaEV]

I think the left has to fight an uphill battle because of this. The point of entry for the right are 5 minute videos filled with disinformation. We on the left have 45 minute long debunking videos about this that only us leftists are gonna sit through. On the other hand if we made videos like them, they'd "debunk" them with lies and propaganda or just ignore them, because apparently that works for them as well. It seemingly doesn't matter at all that we have the facts and logic™ on our side.

[@thisgenerationistoosoftand7590]

I really want to know more about marxism, this vid pretty long, but I can do it lol.

[@oopsiepoopsie2898]

Prageru regularly engages in Gish Galloping. If you don’t know what that is, it’s where you say so much wrong bull shit it takes longer to explain why you are wrong than it does to say your bullshit.

[@anarchozoe]

Excellent video.

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks comrade!

[@Bisquick]

Speaking of Adam Smith, I might be fooling myself here, but one thing that appears to have had at least some success in getting some reconsideration of Marx from 'conservative libertarians' (aka the most absurdly confused/intentionally misled people on earth) using classical economics to get an intellectual foot in the door, is using Adam Smith's accepted consensus as "the father of capitalism" to get them to question the economic rent extraction that he rails against pretty thoroughly in ch.11, book 1 making the obvious but apparently not so obvious point of shitting on landlords as they produce literally nothing of value, which of course is like the throughline of capitalism's justifying logic, and Adam Smith's accepted historical role of being like _the_ proponent of capitalism appears to offer that point of openness toward _actually reading_ what he said which I think/hope is the main barrier in all of this. On this note, and I can't really prove this obviously, but I'd argue the term 'free market' within its historical context where it was used by Smith and Ricardo here seems to have originally meant a market free of economic rent extraction as opposed to the distortion of a market without regulation conservatives seemed to have twisted it into, which is pretty crazy considering that it's virtually the opposite in meaning. But uhh c'est la vie I guess. Anyway, thank you, you're doing God's work and apparently that guy fell asleep on the job.

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks! That might be something we should look into - do you have any good examples of that argument being made, either here or in text, to convincing people to reconsider Marx?

[@redstatesaint]

People who levy the blame that Marx wanted to destroy "democracy" to get to communism often forget that most countries around the world were still enslaved, colonized, or exterminated by genocide; women and non-propertied men didn't have the right to vote; children were still being worked to death as bonded labour inside coal mines and industrial workhouses; and workers and other oppressed communities were killed brutally for demanding equal and better rights. At Jalianwalah Bagh, ordinary indians, hindus, sikhs and muslims, were shot at by the british army simply for assembling for the spring harvest festival, and the two people (Lt. Gov Dwyer and Gen. Dyer) responsible for the incident were given a ticket back to England, and faced no further consequences. For heaven's sake, America needed a war to free slaves. Was that war won by bullets or ballots?

[@redstatesaint]

These are just ahistorical arguments conservatives bring up as if the evolution of democracy in the west was not aided and caused by violent revolutions.

[@RedPlateaus]

@@redstatesaint Couldn't agree more comrade!

[@TheAndrew1987]

you put too much labour for what you get out of these videos, i hope you're not overworking yourself, very underrated channel

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks! To be honest we are, but once the next series comes out (which will be from next episode onwards) it should be worth it, if for no other reason than to get these ideas properly explained.

[@TheAndrew1987]

@@RedPlateaus thank you comrade

[@El_Rebelde_]

Haha I love the "Don't believe the whole it's never been tried argument, it has". Yes but when you criticize capitalism the classic rebuttal is "but real capitalism has never been tried!!"

[@thecanadianpolitic5547]

Yeah but when Communism is tried millions die and when capitalism is tried millions prosper. I think the answer lies in a mixed economy and appears to have been the most successful. The question always was how much is to much and how little is to little?? Appears both systems are not immune to corruption.

[@martinguarani4573]

@@thecanadianpolitic5547 have you...actually watched the video? Socialist states all fell to corruption because power was in the hands of bureaucratic elites. A society where the power was in the hands of the people themselves, in small councils, as said in the video, could not fall to such corruption

[@markbaker4425]

@@thecanadianpolitic5547 capitalism has killed fucking millions of people man. Heard of colonialism? World war one? People toiling to death and injury in sweatshops? The irish famine? I could go on lol

[@casstopa9706]

Who the fuck has ever seriously said that capitalism has never been tried? You must have been talking to some trolls and not realized

[@thecanadianpolitic5547]

​@@markbaker4425 Colonialism isn't capitalism. Neither did it contribute to the cause of WW1. If wasn't for those people working no one would have the life we do today. Capitalism is anti-government. No famine has ever occurred under countries who chose capitalism as an economic path. You should do some more reading there chap!

[@josedavidgarcesceballos7]

It is hard in the eye to see anything from Prager

[@RedPlateaus]

I think the one thing I can say for them is that they do have some pretty graphics on occasion.

[@josedavidgarcesceballos7]

@@RedPlateaus agree. And they are as one-dimensional as them too...

[@chayabat-tzvi1215]

I'm currently reading and reviewing Kengor's latest book, The Devil and Karl Marx, and it is horrid by every definition of the word. His thesis is that Marx was a disturbed and "vile" person who brought dark forces into his life and ended up theorizing the blueprints to a death cult. As a communist Jewish witch, I don't deny that there are certainly esoteric elements found in Marxism, but Kengor's understanding of Marx is downright awful and he offers zero real examination. It's obvious his goal is to pander to his audience of Reagan conservatives and Christian rightists (he is a born-again Roman Catholic, and the book is mostly about alleged communist infiltration of the Church). I suspect his other books read like this as well.

[@RedPlateaus]

I haven't read that one, but that sounds hilarious - and funnier than his other ones. Would you recommend reading it?

[@chayabat-tzvi1215]

@@RedPlateaus Only if you can handle a good cringe. I think he uses the words "evil" and "dark" on every other page. You can find it on Lib Gen.

[@RedPlateaus]

@@chayabat-tzvi1215 I'm gonna try to find time then.

[@ideologue715]

Interesting thing about exploitation. Probably the most important part of the video for me. I was initially feeling like I had lost a key argument for explaining Marxism but I think I realized that yea, like you guys said, Marx never moralizes but I think we can still utilize this secondary meaning of exploitation by focusing on the asymmetrical power structures which give rise to it. Im gonna go read some more on exploitation right now. Anywany keep up the good work guys. Love your videos!

[@RedPlateaus]

I think that makes sense. Our idea is that Marx does have s critique of capitalism centred on the ways in which it thwarts human freedom thereby human development. Insofar as exploitation involves and presupposes assymetrical power relations, we can cash that out in terms of thwarting freedom. Dunno if you've seen it already, but we talk about it in some detail here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpexfmWhbrWqjNE

[@morbidbushido]

Im yet to find a video that speaks of Marxism in a balanced way. Discussing how Marx thought we get from Capitalism to Communism, the mechanics of the process and how human nature helps the process or works against it. Some videos ive watched about capitalism outlines how human nature helps it along and works against it...id like to see that in more detail and less of what could be and should be. I know that's not the goal of this video but im hoping someone can point to one that does becasue Most videos that try to approach the conversation of Marxism in a balanced or promotional way leave out a lot of human nature. Or is it a case of Marxism making sense for its time but can no longer work in todays world knowing what we know bout human nature?

[@Kathrin_yt]

'this is gonna get nerdy' hahah you weren't wrong. i think this is your best video yet!! This must have taken a longgg time! Thanks for doing all this work!

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks! Yes, it did, but hopefully it makes things easier for everyone trying to correct bourgeois misrepresentations of Marx.

[@Bisquick]

Wow, I thought you were joking by saying PragerU has a video titled "Money in Politics: what's the problem?". Some hope for humanity was restored seeing it was pretty universally panned, with the connections to fracking capital explicitly cited in some comments. I'm surprised they allow the comments and stuff but I guess that might give up the game in a different way, and they can scapegoat such panning on 'cultural marxists' or something.

[@RedPlateaus]

I mean, in a sense it is a joke, it's just they who made it, not us.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

I don't really understand how somebody would be able to make up so many lies about their political opponents. At the point where you write something like that down, doesn't your consciousness think something like "ok but first I have to check if Marx really meant it in that way"? Maybe not everyone is such a perfectionist like me, but doesn't everyone wants their work to be devoid of stupid mistakes like that? I don't want my work to be associated with the label of "got the basic facts wrong". That would be so embarrassing. Yet the Right does that all the time and doesn't seem to care. I really don't get it.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

Anyway, great video comrade! I know how much work goes into such long videos, so I hope you can be proud of this video now and take a break from such long projects for a bit^^

[@RedPlateaus]

@@LibertarianLeninistRants Thanks! As someone who makes lots of (usually smaller) mistakes, I don't feel I can judge people to harshly for those things, but when it's really big things like this, yeah, I find it rather incredible, but such is right wing propaganda I guess. No break in sight for us, we got a video on dialectical materialism coming up next!

[@MrCobracommander27]

I can't imagine being as pathetic as you referring to people as comrade

[@RedPlateaus]

@@MrCobracommander27 I see you lack an appreciation for the finer things in life comrade.

[@daltonhudson400]

Libertarian Leninist can’t exist. Property, freedom, ect. Stop using libertarian when you don’t mean it

[@RealDemimondaine]

Great video. Learned what I had forgotten about Marx. Thanks!

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks and you're very welcome!

[@LuckyBlackCat]

I love how you always emphasize the message of freedom in Marxism. Good work, comrade. :)

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks! We do try.

[@niniv2706]

I subscribed to your channel ... We will exchange for a while . Nous pouvons le faire en français ou english ... As you wish .

[@niniv2706]

Lucky ... You know what anti-theism is about ? It is about hatred of ALL faith based ideas ... ALL of them . Name it ... I hate it . Be wild ... I hate all ideas based on feelings .

[@LuckyBlackCat]

@@niniv2706 Thanks for subscribing! I don't speak French so I prefer English. Do you watch Cult of Dusty? He's an anti-theist, you might like his channel.

[@luthwyhn]

@26:40 you accidentally say the Paris Commune happen in 1971

[@RedPlateaus]

Hahahaaaa! Apologies, I hope nobody ends up thinking the 70s were even more exciting than they really were!

[@surajchaudhary613]

Comrade this is wonderful, keep up the great work!

[@theamazingguy150]

And they wonder why everyone clowns on them.

[@janquel9578]

superb video, cannot wait for your next one! also, which books by Filtzer and Cohen did you cite?

[@RedPlateaus]

Thank! Cohen, G. A. 2001. Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence. expanded. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Filtzer, Donald. 1992. Soviet Workers and De-Stalinization: The Consolidation of the Modern System of Soviet Production Relations 1953-1964. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[@janquel9578]

Red Plateaus thank you!

[@RedPlateaus]

@@janquel9578 Any time!

[@2dlines]

From where can I find all those books referenced ? I am unable to find most of them as pdf on google.

[@Gvjrapiro]

Awesome work! thanks for the introduction!

[@Sara-jh8jj]

The dunning-krueger effect is so strong with conservatives. I've never seen a group of people so convinced they can speak on, and dismiss, ideas they don't even make the smallest effort to understand

[@fun_ghoul]

Yet they're also the most likely to invoke "Dunning-Kruger!" as a pejorative against leftists apropos nothing.

[@cazzp8915]

this video is pure gold, thank you for this precious work of divulgation

[@abikelli2427]

This was extremely helpful for me!! Thank you for the work you do! ❤

[@ValiumSadfemmeMcGirlBoss]

I am inspired by your work.

[@RedPlateaus]

We're flattered to hear that.

[@lia-hv8vt]

i appreciate the fact that you made this video, someone just had to say it. thank you comrade

[@Artyom751]

Good video, just a small error I noticed: 32:45 There was no USSR until 1922. The civil war started at the end of 1918.

[@RedPlateaus]

You're right, we should have said 'what became the USSR' or some such.

[@juju1435]

Thank you for this vid

[@RedPlateaus]

You're welcome!

[@seacue9417]

Thanks, I learned a lot. Good video.

[@kaden2936]

In the section on exploitation, you explain how when Marx uses the term 'exploitation' it is descriptive rather than normative (i.e. it describes what is happening, not saying whether it's good or bad). Did Marx have a conception of justice? If so, what was it? Is it different from the generally used principle that 'people get what they deserve/what is fair'? Obviously, Marx did not like Capitalism, was concerned with the injustice it produced, and ultimately, he wanted to move beyond capitalism. So although his analysis does not rely on any normative/moral arguments, at the end of the day, he wanted to show that capitalism was indeed bad, right? So for exploitation, the capitalist appropriates the surplus value produced by the worker because they have bought the worker's labour power. The worker is exploited. Morally neutral, purely descriptive. You can analyse it without making it a moral argument. But the point is then to use that to try convince people that such an arrangement is bad, unjust. He didn't analyse capitalism simply for the sake of analysing capitalism.

[@RedPlateaus]

Marx didn't have anything that he recognized as a theory of justice that he used to criticize capitalism. As we point out here, Marx never criticizes capitalism for distributing goods and services badly or unjustly, and he criticizes those who do (e.g. Proudhon and the Lassalleans). Instead, he criticized capitalism for being unfree and thereby restricting human development. We explain these ideas in some detail here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpexfmWhbrWqjNE Now, you might or might not have a much broader conception of 'justice' in mind, in which case it might or might not count, depending on what exactly that conception is.

[@kaden2936]

@@RedPlateaus Thanks for the reply! Does he ever criticise markets for distributing good and services badly? (Markets being distinct from capitalism)

[@RedPlateaus]

@@kaden2936 Nope.

[@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1]

24:17 They payed according to contribution, as the USSR was an agrarian, backwards semi-feudal society and therefore lacked the economic base for widespread distribution according to need. The difference between the USSR and corporations is that the primary goal of the Soviet economic organization wasn't the maximization profits for individual shareholders, but to industrialize, modernize and advance the country so that it could, in time, transition from a distribution according to contribution to a distribution according to need. If the USSR had such a thing as shareholders, the shareholders of Soviet economic machine was the Soviet people as a whole.

[@RedPlateaus]

The bit about distributing according to contribution is exactly what we're saying, only we're a bit more detailed about it, since there was, for a variety of understandable reasons, a fair bit of variation. There are lots of differences between the Soviet economy and e.g. capitalism, some of which you mention and we agree. One bit sticks out to us though, which we'd be interested in hearing more about. You say that people were paid 'according to contribution, as the USSR was an agrarian, backwards semi-feudal society'. This seems an interesting departure from orthodox Third International doctrine, which holds that there's a stage of socialism (where, among other things, distribution is like this, has a state, etc.) between capitalism and communism (which is stateless, distributes according to need, etc.) for any society, not only for 'agrarian, backwards semi-feudal' ones (though there is of course some debate and disagreement about this). Where do you get this alternative theory from?

[@warlocksmiling4586]

@@RedPlateaus You are aware Marx describes a lower and higher phase of communist society? The ruling principle of distribution within the lower phase being according to contribution? I am not defending the USSR, I am a Left Communist and I believe it was a State Capitalist Bureaucracy. It is just a shame you neglected to have such nuance in this video.

[@RedPlateaus]

@@warlocksmiling4586 We are indeed aware of that. I take that you're responding to our response above, in which case I think you misunderstand what we were talking about in that second paragraph. There we're not talking about Marx (who, as you rightly point out, talks of lower and higher phases of communism), but specifically about orthodox Third International Marxism, which talks of distinct stages of socialism and communism. If you're instead referring to the video itself, here I think you're also missing the point. Kengor himself makes the point about distribution according to need and the Soviet Union, and we're (correctly) pointing out that this is, among other things, mis-describing the latter.

[@jacobvg3204]

This is a bit late but thought I'd give a few thoughts. First, kudos for exposing Prageru's lack of knowledge about Marx, this was really one of their more cringe takes. That said, I think I agree and disagree with this video's thesis. Although there is a sense in which Marx did not think capitalism was unjust (you're right about his refutation of Lasalle's moralism about fairness & equality), this is also not the whole story. Against the view that Marx thought capitalism was not unjust (which is known as the Tucker-Wood thesis), there are also many instances where Marx clearly does resort to moral arguments, using language like 'theft' and 'plunder'. An interesting example is where he writes in the Grundrisse that alienation (i.e. the separation of labour from the conditions of its realisation) is "improper" (ungehörig), but when he reproduces this passage in the Critique of Political Economy, he replaces "improper" with "an injustice" (ein Unrecht). This contradiction in Marx is resolved when you see that he's offering a hierarchical, multi-perspective analysis of justice. So on one hand (as emphasised by the Tucker-Wood thesis), Marx is giving an account (sometimes ironically) of how the capitalist wage-relation is viewed as just according to prevailing capitalist norms. But on the other hand, he is offering a socialist critique of capitalist exploitation and of the norms which hold it to be just. However, even this does not capture the richness of Marx's thought, because he also has an overarching meta-critique of the very notion of justice, whereby he adopts a communist standpoint and criticises both capitalist exploitation AND the socialist critique that it is unjust. Ultimately, for Marx, moralistic talk of justice is still the sign of a class society - once true emancipation is achieved under communism, there will be no need for bourgeois notions of justice. This is why you can find Marxist thinkers expressing Marx's critique of justice itself from a higher-critical standpoint. The Soviet legal thinker Evgeny Pashukanis, for example, wrote that the withering away of bourgeois law, will, under socialist conditions, mean the withering away of law altogether. Pashukanis may have had some dubious theories about the state, and was ultimately killed by Stalin, but he was still remaining entirely faithful to Marx. This paradox in Marx's thought is discussed in much more detail in a great book by Steven Lukes, which I highly recommend. I should also say I'm not a Marxist, and I happen to think Marx is wrong on a lot of the stuff above, but though I disagree with him I just can't stand to see those like Prageru misrepresent him so badly, and I'm grateful to see more unintelligent anti-Marxists get challenged. So this is just food for thought for anyone who cares.

[@morriciummagnum860]

I read this comment and I thank you for ur insight.

[@jacobvg3204]

@@morriciummagnum860 Thank you mate, glad you got something from it

[@theplebeian2706]

I've considered myself a socialist for nearly two years, but this was the most incredible explanation of so many things I've been wondering about for so long. Wonderful video!

[@Notapizzathief]

Great video, simply explained. Thanks!

[@jb10626]

Could you say what the subsection/chapter is for the quote at 14:02 is? I can't find it in my edition (1990 Penguin Classics).

[@jb10626]

Or just a listed bibliography would work too

[@RedPlateaus]

@@jb10626 I double-checked and it's definitely there in the Penguin edition, on the first new paragraph starting on that page, the one beginning with "Except as capital personified..."

[@jb10626]

@@RedPlateaus so it is. It was late when I was reading, that's my excuse 😬

[@jb10626]

@@RedPlateaus aside from that! I just realised I didn't say, but this is a great video and a great channel! I love it

[@RedPlateaus]

@@jb10626 Thanks, that's great to hear!

[@bowser_inthe_darkworld2]

This is stunningly good

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks!

[@cam-gv2gf]

would you be interested in a video critiquing deng xiaoping's theories and his relation to marx? i.e. historical/dialectical materialism, their conceptions of socialism, etc.

[@RedPlateaus]

Realistically, not any time soon I'm afraid.

[@quinnnosbod3673]

Deng Xiaoping theory is fascinating

[@teatrinofanzine]

Great video! Maybe you could do one on how liberals and conservatives are actually quite the same nowadays? I mean in their economic standpoints. I can't help but feel that now liberals are just conservatives who like gay people and don't have a problem with religion, but when it comes to the actual material state of the world, they differ really not that much.

[@RedPlateaus]

Ooo, yeah that's a great idea. Gotta think of a good title now...

[@tigerstyle4505]

I often wonder how much easier conversations could be if there was nothing called Marxism, no one labeled themselves Marxists, if I didn't spend most of the time correcting misunderstandings of the USSR or explaining why what they did doesn't speak to socialism in general, all the of extreme deviations they, China and the DPRK have implemented, etc. Because the misinformation has successfully tied Marx to socialism and everything everyone calling themselves a Marxist has ever done in the name of socialism. If we could just talk about socialism on the merits it would go so much easier lol When I talk to people that's largely what I do, I avoid any terms that set off their Red Scare alarms and trigger a tide of misconceptions and just stick to the basics at first. It's amazing how intuitive the basics of council communism or anarchism are to so many people. When it's framed in a more stripped down manner without all the things people have been conditioned from birth to recoil from ya get so much further. But when people stick to -isms and imagery and rigid theory and language it becomes extremely easy for reactionaries to propagandize against. If we just spoke about the exploitation and unnecessary suffering, the alternatives and possibilities, and the fundamental drivers of the opposition to capitalism and classist state and in favor of self-governance and self-organization of individuals and collectives, freedom and dignity, people are much more inclined to listen with a more open mind. But as soon as they hear Marx or any other buzzword that they're trained to hate they shut down. None of that's to say it's not important that they eventually understand it. It's just getting them to the point of even wanting to that we need to focus on cause we've been failing miserably for a long time and letting Leninism and it's derivatives be used as a bludgeon against socialism in general. I'm so sick of hearing self-described Marxists claim that caring about autonomy or wellbeing is "just liberalism" and literally playing into the villainous caricature that western propaganda has painted all socialists as in an ironic twist that shows their ideas surrounding communism are more informed by that western propaganda than anything else. Idk. Just seems like we'd have a much easier time building a movement if we were smarter with our language and general tactics when speaking to people who are not well informed on the topics and stopped clinging to historical aesthetics and instead focused on showing people why they're wrong and that we do have alternatives that can deliver on the ethics and values that liberal democracy has only ever paid lip service to. ✊👊🖤☮️🏴🥀🌐A///E

[@yuzhouxingzhe]

Thank you so much for your hard work! It's inspiring and I hope I can create content as dense and rich in the future! Please forgive the facile question(s) I want to pose. Pointing out the ways in which Marx's excellent critique of capitalism and capitalist social relations seems to have been ignored, or at least temporarily shelved during the 20th century revolutions makes it difficult for me to reconcile the idea of "orthodox marxism." Full disclosure, I'm a libertarian socialist who finds a lot of important analysis and capitalist critique in Marx. In the 20th century, socialist states used the capitalist mode of production (only instead of free markets and private ownership, it was planned economies and national ownership) to rapidly industrialize their nations. Their socialism was defined, it seems, in opposition to imperialism rather than to capitalism, the assumption being that once industrialization was complete, the state apparatus would then somehow lead the people to communism - without ever using a more democratic mode of production that wasn't run on surplus labor - (this is explicitly what Mao wrote, for instance). Not to mention the idea of socialism in one state. While I've not exhaustively read Marx, it's hard to reconcile this position with the way Marx conceived of the transition of the capitalist mode of production to communism. If 20th century revolutions differ so fundamentally from Marx's concerns, how do we argue that 20th century socialist states are orthodox marxist states? Is it fair to criticize 20th century socialist states for being insufficiently interested in the core of Marx's economic analysis? I really don't want to Marxsplain to anyone... and I admittedly have a lot to learn... so I'd appreciate any guidance!

[@RedPlateaus]

That's a big question. By 'orthodox' we don't necessarily mean tha these views are correct - so we call 'Orthodox Second International Marxism' and 'Orthodox Third International Marxism' these things not because we think they both tend to have entirely accurate readings of Marx (which they can't both do, since they contradict each other). Rather, we just mean the sortof standard views that are identified with the Marxism of those internationals - though within both there was lots of variation, many exceptions, and so on. We're going to talk more about Marx's views on the transition from capitalism to communism in an upcoming video in our next series, since he doesn't say all that much about it and what he does say often isn't understood very well - e.g. he remains adamant on freedoms of speech, press conviction, and association, the democratisation of all spheres of social life, etc. And although he views the Paris Commune of the model of socialist revolutions after 1871, he doesn't lay out details of strategy. That's why loads of the later variations and splits in different strands of Marxism are about strategy, with e.g. council communists advocating things very similar to many anarchists and e.g. orthodox Third International Marxists advocating a very different approach. We definitely think that Marx's views on freedom and critique of capitalism for its unfreedom have been neglected and that this is bad thing in terms of understanding what he thinks and which useful ideas socialists can draw from him, which is why we made this series to explain them: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpexfmWhbrWqjNE

[@gidrbridumarg3152]

Thorough rebuttal, comrade. Very insightful video. Keep em coming!

[@hoxhacat8195]

Prager not realising that the centralisation of credit, communication, and transport is a factor of socialism, not of communism. Principles of SOCIALISM by J.V. Stalin: 1. The dictatorship of the proletariat-the workers' state; 2. Public ownership of the means of production; 3. Nationalization of all banks merger of all into state; 4. Planned management of the economy from one center, tbe principle 'from each according to ability, to each according to labour'; 5. The dominance of Marxist-Leninist ideology; 6. Creation of armed forces to protect the achievements of the revolution; 7. Ruthless armed suppression of counter-revolution and foreign agents.

[@oopsiepoopsie2898]

As soon I saw the video and he said Marx wanted the state to control everything I knew I could turn it off.

[@cam-gv2gf]

I'm divided on the section from Capital where he describes the selling of labour power as "by no means an injustice." I think there are multiple interpretations of what this passage means and whether it means that Marx thinks exploitation is unjust or not. I understand and agree with the argument (from Marx) that notions of justice and equality are bad political goals, but I still think Marx (implictly and/or explicitly) thought exploitation was 'unethical' or 'an injustice', in the realm of production. Here's an article talking about this passage and its interpretations - they say we have to look at the statement in the context of production vs labour as commodity. Would love to get your thoughts on it. www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00455091.1981.10715774 PDF from author: younglaw.net/articlesmarx/doing.pdf

[@RedPlateaus]

That's one of the two or three standard ways of coming up with an ad hoc way of saving the idea that Marxian exploitation is about justice from the fact that (a) there's no textual evidence whatsoever for it and (b) that there is very clear textual evidence against (i.e. Marx explicitly rejects it repeatedly). As such, I think it only seems plausible if you already assume that Marx must be making a critique on terms of justice here. Here's a discussion of these issues: www.academia.edu/8541846/Marx_and_Justice_A_Re-Examination_of_the_Arguments Importantly though, that doesn't mean that Marx doesn't have a normative critique of capitalism - it's just about freedom and human development, not about the principles of distributing goods and services, on which I recommend (if you haven't seen it already) our video series on these things: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpexfmWhbrWqjNE

[@cam-gv2gf]

@@RedPlateaus thank you, that actually clears up a lot. :)

[@RedPlateaus]

@@cam-gv2gf That's great to hear and you're welcome!

[@CaptPeon]

What continues to baffle me is that so many people declare how great capitalism is and say "look at all of the good that capitalism has done". Do you know who else agrees with them? Karl Marx. The entire point is not that capitalism should never have been "invented", only that the internal contradictions and conflict make it unsustainable in the long term; the proletariat will only suffer for so long before moving on to a better evolution of socio economic systems. I'm convinced that the only reason we haven't progressed towards socialism-> communism (aside from red Scare rhetoric and misinformation) is that capitalists have done a good job of exporting the worst of the atrocities to the global south. The next iteration is an inevitability.

[@LODILifeVlogs]

But what does Marx say in his writings regarding the subject of wealth creation? I'm just curious thanks.

[@anarchisttechsupport6644]

I do have to say... Workers' alienation from the wealth they produce and power over their own lives? Sounds like some *deeply Unjust Exploitation* to me. And I agree with This interpretation of Marx.

[@RedPlateaus]

I suspect in that case that you're operating with a different conception of 'justice' than Marx is. I don't know which of the many ones you have in mind, but here's an example. A lot of contemporary people use 'justice' to refer to basically everything that's politically evaluative (good/bad, better/worse, harmful/beneficial, etc.). In that case what Marx says would qualify as justice in this very broad sense. However, if instead you take 'justice' to refer to e.g. the principles of good/bad distribution of goods and services in a society, then it's both the case that Marx's critique isn't about that and that he explicitly repudiates criticizing capitalism on those grounds.

[@anarchisttechsupport6644]

@@RedPlateaus thanks for the enlightening video and discussion! The Liberty, Egality, Fraternity initially promised by Capitalism? Failed. Deplorably so. That such a definition of exploitation is a purely utilitarian condition? Makes sense from a Capitalist perspective; but after living through it? Such carries further implications for the society - further un-Freedoms, Inequalities, and Class divisions. These themselves perpetrate *measurable, discernible* harm upon our peoples, our communities, and our very lives. Even when we limit our "justice" to purely the Economic considerations? These offshoot systems - from Jim Crow, through redlining to Police Immunity - deal intrinsic, bordering on immeasurable economic harm. Placed into this context? A Scientific Socialism probably *should* view this exploitation and alienation as a grave Injustice, perpetrated by the ruling class. Unless there's something specific I'm missing about the term "Justice". Though, considering the intersections between all the disparate spheres of life? Economic, Social, political, etc... I might have to disagree with your (and Marx's) premise that Justice can afford to be so limited. And If that means I think a 19th century European intellectual was too limited in his thinking, despite his *Monumental Contribution* to Society? That places me - and Marx, for that matter - in good company. I guess this is why Im an AnCom. Marx is amazing to learn from! But if your interpretation bears true, I dont see him going far enough. Did he not write that the material conditions dictate the terms of such a Revolution? If not, we probably have Lenin or Mao to thank for that insight. As well as many of the takes that PragerU mangles, and misattributes to Marx. If Im not mistaken, PragerU's conception of the "attack upon families" for the effort at tearing down all structures of society? Sounds vaguely reminiscient of Mao's Cultural Revolution. But warped, distorted, completely taken out of context, and attributed to the Wrong Man. Thanks for the education!

[@RedPlateaus]

@@anarchisttechsupport6644 I think it's still not clear what you mean by 'justice' here - it looks like you're presupposing a very specific and quite broad idea, but it's not clear what that is. Different people use it in very different ways. If you mean certain things by 'justice', then things X and Y might fall under it; if you mean something else, they might not. So if you're thinking that, say, the critique of capitalism to be found in Marx's theory of alienation counts as 'unjust', that pushes the question back to what you mean by 'unjust', and thus probably to what you mean by 'justice'.

[@philliphessel6788]

This video is technically messed up. After the first few minutes, it gets glacially frozen even though the runtime counter is still ticking normally. In that state, it is effectively unwatchable.

[@ronnysmobilephone]

Marx might not have said exploitation under capitalism is unjust...but here, let me says it, exploitation under Capitalism is unjust. There now it's settled.

[@peternyc]

This is such a fantastic video. Thank you so much!!!

[@RedPlateaus]

You're welcome!

[@fun_ghoul]

If you want to be super fancy, you could change your name to "Red Plateaux", which is correct in both English and in French; I mean, not the "Red" part, but...Frenchies know what "red" means!

[@RedPlateaus]

There are few things more fancy than a Platypus and a red one is even better; another direction we've considered.

[@fun_ghoul]

@@RedPlateaus Sure, why not? Capitalism threatens them with extinction too!

[@Raydensheraj]

What would the right be without " False Consciousness ".

[@spellman007]

this is so fucking good guys. well done.

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks!

[@ruhl1045]

i love you and this video

[@Ceeeeee451]

did you really need to reference a rick and morty clip? jk but good video nonetheless, I would also recommend xexizy's video as well

[@jbdbibbaerman8071]

Wow, I really appreciate this video. I can tell you that no one ever told me this stuff about Marxism or this in depth. I feel I learned more about Marx in this video than anywhere else before, and it really has given me an appreciation for the guy.

[@RedPlateaus]

That's great to hear! If you're interested, we have a playlist that goes into these ideas more here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpexfmWhbrWqjNE

[@mydiary9364]

I think one of the reason why Marx has been misundertood so much is partly because leftists themselves, in the process of trying to appeal to as much people as they can, has untintionally spread simplified and false Marx's ideas (Gravel institute or Richard Woff). But I'm not so sure since a lot of them are very fond of advocating self-proclaimed socialist countries who do relatively well on capitalist terms, which is ironic. The attitude to take side of those countries as opposed to unashamed capitalist countries also lead people to believe them as the materialization of ideals in Marx writings, even though there is nothing socialist or communist in their policies, and worship everything they do, including the state or aggressive measures against marginalized groups, in the process. So yea, it's not very likely that right wingers are lying, they are ignorant but smart enough to turn the pseudo-marxist rhetorics against us.

[@pp-qr3fl]

SEIZE THE TOOTHBRUSHES

[@hoxhacat8195]

"Abolition of property," bruh, Prager, no, there's the abolition of private property, not commonly owned or even personal property.

[@theolane5400]

This video is so much better than 110 comments!

[@theolane5400]

Let's blow up this whole section with replies and thumbs ups to manipulate the algorithm!

[@RedPlateaus]

@@theolane5400 We're obviously not entirely opposed to this idea or you sending it to anyone you think might benefit from it :)

[@josephjones4968]

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." -- Ayn Rand

[@teutonicterror0365]

Wow, great, a lady who thinks being raped is the ideal beginning for a love relationship once said something about an ideology she knew nothing about. Yeah man, you really owned us Marxists with this one... In all seriousness though, this fucking comment is absolutely useless, it doesn´t disprove any of Marx´s ideas or any of the points made in the video, it just proves that Ayn Rand doesn´t understand the fucking words she´s using

[@Aegius]

2:15 Marx did state what the future should be like. That isn't true at all. He stated that the state should be absolute, but he also stated that the state would erode and gradually there would be heaven other Earth which would lead to the state withering away.

[@RedPlateaus]

It doesn't look like you understand what we're saying there. For what Marx actually says about future society, we go through that here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5uklqhsZd6ratU

[@hoxhacat8195]

Prager calling Lenin a "dictator" and calling Pol Pot a "Marxist" is hilarious.

[@ashtonsherrod7824]

Not only that Pol Pot was backed by the US to get into power and it was vietnam that overthrown him. I'm not a communist but as a Christian I believe we should tell the truth about everything and not fall for the official narrative when it's a lie. I agree communist countries were not perfect to Christians, Muslims, Jews, ect but to say the US is the ally of christians or a "Christian nation" is a lie. The United States left Christians to die or helped groups that murdered them, from Armenian, Greek, Aasyrian genocides, to helping Al qeada, and ISIS in Iraq, Syria , and other places America helped in the murder of christians. Not to mention the death squads in Latin America, helping the Saudi regime, and the way America has murdered Muslims as well.

[@josephdoyle4067]

This is a half baked interpretation of Marx's utopian pipe dream. One question: how is an individual's need quantified?

[@rodcroft5570]

You agree with the ownership of private property at all?

[@manatteegiggles7743]

They will never survive this

[@AbteilungsleiterinBeiAntifaEV]

I mean if we can't have freedom because of capitalism and it is our (moral) right to be free, doesn't that imply that capitalism is unjust?

[@RedPlateaus]

We've answered this sort of idea in other comments. Here's a paste from one of them: I suspect in that case that you're operating with a different conception of 'justice' than Marx is. I don't know which of the many ones you have in mind, but here's an example. A lot of contemporary people use 'justice' to refer to basically everything that's politically evaluative (good/bad, better/worse, harmful/beneficial, etc.). In that case what Marx says would qualify as justice in this very broad sense. However, if instead you take 'justice' to refer to e.g. the principles of good/bad distribution of goods and services in a society, then it's both the case that Marx's critique isn't about that and that he explicitly repudiates criticizing capitalism on those grounds.

[@AbteilungsleiterinBeiAntifaEV]

@@RedPlateaus I just don't want to have this argument taken away from me. It's easy to explain why capitalism is unjust, it's a bit harder to explain "Das Kapital". Especially since I actually haven't read all of it yet (what Marx says is right, but his writing style is terrible imo). I'm not saying that Marx said it's unjust, I partially disagree with him criticising others who said that. He's partially right there that it's not useful to base ur criticism of capitalism solely on that, but I still think it can be a persuasive argument.

[@RedPlateaus]

@@AbteilungsleiterinBeiAntifaEV I'm still not clear on what you mean by 'justice' and 'unjust' here, so depending on what you mean it might or might not include what Marx is talking about. In terms of Marx's critique of capitalism, we have a series where we explain it in more detail here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpexfmWhbrWqjNE And in that series we talk more about his views on 'justice' and what we or others might think of the relationship between justice and Marx's critique in the first (Human Development) episode and the Season 1 QnA.

[@AbteilungsleiterinBeiAntifaEV]

@@RedPlateaus the more I think about it, the harder it is to explain what I mean by "unjust"... I mean most people will conflict "justice" with "equality", which obviously is wrong, because if we treat everyone "equal" we fuck over people with disabilities for example. Others will orient their definition of justice based on the law, which is wrong too, because the law can be unjust and of course change over time. So that _isn't_ justice, but then what _is?_ I honestly don't know for sure. I think I'd say justice is a morality and ethics thing, maybe? If something is amoral and/or unethical, it's unjust. But that just leads to "What is moral, what is ethical?"... I think a just way of distribution of goods would be that everyone gets to live to the highest standard of living possible without excluding or harming anyone. As soon as ur standard of living harms someone else, it's unjust. So basically "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs". But that's of course only a small part of the big term "justice" I'll check out these other videos I haven't watched yet. Thanks for all ur work, time and effort, I wish I could give back in some meaningful way.

[@SiddharthaCC]

>How the capitalist empires brought literal slavery to the Americas Sure, if you want to deny the fact of slavery in the Aztec empire, just to name one big example.

[@RedPlateaus]

I think you're confusing what we mean here - and fair enough because we don't explain this point in detail. It's possible to bring booze to a party that previously had no booze; it's also possible to bring booze to a party where there's already some booze; and it's possible to do both if you're moving through lots of parties over a very long an exciting week. When we say they brought literal slavery, we're deliberate indetermine across these senses, because depending on which parts parts of the Americas (being a large and diverse place, especially before colonization) you're thinking of, they either brought slavery to places that didn't have it before or brought slavery to places which already had some. We should also point out that the form of slavery brought by European colonizers tended to be rather different than the ones that pre-existed their arrival.

[@SiddharthaCC]

@@RedPlateaus Certainly what you say is right, but saying that I am "confusing what you mean" because you are being "deliberate indetermine across these senses" is rather sly. What you say is pretty clear: "How the capitalist empires brought literal slavery to the Americas". Almost as if there had been no form of slavery in the Americas before European colonization, something that is factually false, regardless of the differences between the forms of slavery carried out at each side of the Atlantic. In any case, you may mean something more nuanced, but it matters very little if you don't state or explain it straightforwardly. What you *say* in the video comes across very differently in comparison to what you might *mean* . Sure, maybe you're not well-read on the subject (or you might be; I don't know and that's not the point) and you're phrasing it in a "deliberately indeterminate" way in order to do without further explanations, but I think that 1) it is a subject worth exploring in detail in another video, and 2) the way you phrase it is misleading and could lead to simplifications and misinterpretations.

[@RedPlateaus]

@@SiddharthaCC As you can imagine, we can't go into excruciating detail on every little point - the video is longer than we'd like it to be as it is. You didn't understand what we meant, which is fine, and we've explained to you what we in fact meant. You can try impugning our motives all you like, but that doesn't make it true. On exploring it in another video, we agree that it would be interesting, but, sadly, we currently have too many other things planned to get into that any time soon.

[@SiddharthaCC]

@@RedPlateaus No need to go over every little detail, my friend. A simple change in phrasing would have made things more clear. Νο need to take it personal, either. You're misunderstanding me: I'm not accusing you of anything. It's just that being deliberately indeterminate, as you say, on a video about someone misinterpretating facts and details seems to me a little strange. But let's leave it at that, since this is a minor problem in an otherwise informative and well-researched video. Cheers.

[@RedPlateaus]

@@SiddharthaCC Being indeterminate in formulation is pretty standard when you want to say something that's correct without saying anything wrong (by being more precise, but wrong) when you can't (or don't want to) get into lots of detail (by saying things more precisely, but having to say lots more things), But the key thing is that you know what we mean now at least.

[@unclefa4416]

algorithm

[@jcthejfreak]

1st point is already a straw man. The PragerU video criticizes the idea of Marxism logically and not Marx himself. It’s in the first sentence of their video. Btw, the sprinkled ad hominem is also annoying. In the first few seconds of your video I already detected these 2 fallacies. Good job.

[@peternyc]

The opportunity employers exploit was created by the state when things like "poaching" became illegal. There is a young political economist named Tim DiMuzio who has written about this. I don't know if he is a Marxist, but he shows the reader how the state made all forms of self reliance and subsistence illegal by privatizing the commons. Other writers and political economists have written about this, Henry George being the most famous. Monopoly of "labor" by the class that owns income producing property (means of production, capital) is the most ubiquitous form of monopoly. When people have no alternative to survival but to exchange their labor for money, they are no longer free. This is done by monopolizing land and money, where money becomes the sole object of work. Non Marxists look to opening up the commons, creating multiple forms of money (monetary plurality - Bernard Lietear's writing) or at the very least, money issued by the government, not banks, as equity, not debt. This was done by Lincoln during the American Civil War to fund the North's war production. The money was called the Lincoln Greenback. I don't say all this to counter Marx or Red Plateaus, only to let folks know there are resources out there from non Marxist circles that can be used to illustrate Marx's points.

[@graete8644]

this is so good, thank u

[@hoxhacat8195]

Prager is the king of strawman arguments.

[@IscariotHeartwork]

I clicked this video hoping there wouldn't be an atrocious accent. And my hopes were rewarded, lovely voice.

[@ogden700]

You are denying that Marx thought Capitalism unjust? By this you prove the charge against Communism that it functions by flagrant flouting of fact. How do you think that you would fare in fair public debate with me on the thesis that "The Communist Manifesto" is a sustained dialtribe against the perceived injustice of Capital, Capitalists, and Capitalism? Hint: this video itself contradicts its own denial at the following time-stamp, in which you quote Maex asserting that Capitalism is unjust: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3nEin2aqJpohas ('heighten the contradictions' indeed...)

[@tomio8072]

Something can be miserable while still being just

[@ogden700]

@@tomio8072 Agreed. But that's an irrelevance. This video makes the statement that Marx never said that Capitalism was unjust, which is not only a lie, but a lie (as give the evidence to prove) that is exposed in this very video itsef. And of course that's bad in itself, but even worse is the validation it gives to the common view that Marxism (a.) lies about everything, and (b.) denies that lying is a valid category, because Marxism is more important than truth and morals.

[@josephjones4968]

"the most important thinker of the last millennium"...? 😆🤡😆🤡😆🤡😆🤡😆🤡

[@AJ-gd9tl]

Why waste time on this

[@AbteilungsleiterinBeiAntifaEV]

Because liars like PragerU are sadly quite influential. This video might not be seen by many PragerU fans, but it might help u to debunk their lies when ur friends or relatives repeat them.

[@AJ-gd9tl]

Bibis Product Placements who cares about debunking what reactionaries or children think or say. This stuff only exists in the realm of “online politics” this worthless sphere of absolute nothing. Talk about the working class! Talk about their existing and historical struggles that few know! Talk about how to apply the lessons from these struggles in your organising.

[@cam-gv2gf]

@@AJ-gd9tl He's doing all of the things you mention WHILE debunking this excuse for a video.

[@SvalbardSleeperDistrict]

@@AJ-gd9tl "who cares about debunking what reactionaries or children think or say. This stuff only exists in the realm of 'online politics' this worthless sphere of absolute nothing" Just because a lot of political debate today happens online doesn't make it irrelevant - it's still actual people debating actual political subjects of theory and history. Therefore debunking those misrepresenting it to impressionable young minds on Twitter and elsewhere is as important as teaching that generation irl. If you don't like doing it, that's your choice, but posting smug condescending comments about people who care about what working class people know, and make sure those people aren't successfully lied to, says more about you than anyone doing that.

[@fun_ghoul]

@@AJ-gd9tl The working class is the main target of charlatans like PragerEww.

[@saintdragonfly1380]

People 'should' work. Money should not be given to people who are not working for it. Capitalism has 'not' pounded countries into poverty. The idea of Capitalism is just. But 'morality' is all the more important. Moral and good leaders make fair and prosperous businesses. They have the 'right' to state the wages they would like to pay their workers. If they are a moral and fair leader, they will set a fair wage for labor. If they are an immoral and unfair leader, they will set an unfair wage for labor. Same with workers.. If the worker has reasoned the wage to be fair for them concerning the amount of work, they will be grateful. If the worker has trouble reasoning because they are blinded by greed and wish not to put in the amount of work required for the position, they will rather complain and protest and demand higher wages and less work. The government should feed the people information that promotes moral character... Only then can moral people come forth. Only a few will remain immoral and fall into a minority. But when the government feeds its people information that promotes immorality, only then can an immoral people come forth. Only a few will remain moral and become a minority. Those who are in the 'minority' will always feel oppressed by the dominate group. Those who are oppressed by a moral group will still have the freedom to do what they want and say what they want. Those who are oppressed by an immoral group will be actively silenced, hunted down, cursed, ridiculed, persecuted, trampled down until they are destroyed and are no more. Homosexuality is immoral. This alternative lifestyle is highly sexualized and is all about sex. As it grows in this modern age, Drag Queen Storytime has been introduced to children, gender reassignment surgery is forced upon children who think they are of a different gender, and the destruction of male and female are now on the way.... The legalization of pedophilia will not be long to come too, out of all this. And that's just 'one' of 'many' current examples of immorality that's being promoted these days. All people should have the right to own what they want under a fair and 'just law' that has been set to govern the land... And no one should be above 'the law'. But when a government has come to produce immoral people, then immoral people will come to promote immoral laws and vote for those immoral vote to be passed. The problem these days is that 'morality' and 'wisdom' are slowing being destroyed. People are calling what is evil, good... And what is good, evil... That's the real problem... Work hard, never give up, abide by the law, be humble and fair, don't expect to be served- but rather serve others. Believe in your dreams and bring them into reality. Think positively and know the difference between right and wrong.

[@jeangrondin921]

Even if we assume that people should work (automation is a thing), not everyone *can* work. Only the "leaders" are allowed to offer work. And they're not offering them to everyone. So when you say "Money should not be given to people who are not working for it", you're really saying "Our leaders should have the power to decide who works and who doesn't, and the unlucky ones who didn't get chosen should starve." Since you're basically advocating for starving to death a big portion of the population, I don't think you're qualified to talk about morality.

[@fun_ghoul]

_"Work hard, never give up, abide by the law, be humble and fair, don't expect to be served- but rather to be shot down by the cops in the prime of your life while reaching for the driver's licence they just asked you to get."_ Fixed it for ya, champ.

[@saintdragonfly1380]

@@jeangrondin921 and its oppressive negative small minded thinkers like you that keep society grumbling about pathetic things. Its obvious that anyone who has a medical problem cannot work and should be helped. That's moral. But for those who can, they SHOULD work and that is that. I refuse for my taxes to be spent on lazy bums like you who sit at home searching through KZbin comments to respond to and complain about your socialist ideas. Get a job and work like a moral person and you'll be much happier. Stop trying to hide under a cloak of morality, disguising yourself as 'one who cares about people who can't work'. Let's get real. You only care about yourself. Stop sittin' around thinking about how you can spend other people's money and go and make your own. ::smh::

[@saintdragonfly1380]

@@fun_ghoul you watch too much democratic propaganda to strongly believe that cops are actively hunting you down because of the color of your skin. What a sad mindset your soul is enslaved to ::smh::

[@sirherbert6953]

@Saint Dragonfly Are you a fascist? Sure, sound like one. Maybe a paleoconservative?

[@cosmicwakes6443]

What was wrong with the Soviet Union? You're a left Com?

[@RedPlateaus]

We're not criticising the Soviet Union here, so I think you might be mixing up us summarising things that critics of Marx argue with respect to the Soviet Union, which we then go on to respond to, with us making those arguments for ourselves.

[@sweetcoffee3502]

@@RedPlateaus Have you thought of making a video about the Soviet Union? I think a lot of people might appreciate your comment on such a complicated topic.

[@RedPlateaus]

@@sweetcoffee3502 We've considered it, but right now we really need to get on with our series on dialectical materialism, the theory of praxis, base and superstructure, theory of history, and revolution - that and the odd response to bourgeois mispreresentations of Marx. Once we're done with that we'll see.