I thought I'd return with some follow-up thoughts. One thing that needs to be said is that Marx & Engels wrote a lot. Their writing was consistent, but not perfectly consistent. Stances on violence, war, and the preconditions for revolution fluctuated. Marx also wasn't the clearest writer, favoring emotional language over technical precision. On top of that, there were holes in their theory, or at least spotty parts, sometimes on important points (ex. what exactly does the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' mean? How can the dictatorship of the proletariat rule 'democratically?' What did Engels mean when he said the State would 'wither away?'). As a result, there is no universally agreed upon understanding of what classical Marxism actually is. Circles tend to form around different interpretations of it, each circle believing they hold the correct understanding of Marxism. That has led to a long history of disagreement on Marx and fighting among Marxists. Within that, I tried to stick with the closest we have to a standard understanding, using both primary and secondary sources. I tried to put as little of my own opinion into it as possible and to flag where I did, like my interpretation of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his means'. I think the part that rubbed the most people the wrong way was the claim that Marx's communism is essentially totalitarian. In my experience that's the standard explanation, and I did flag that some disagree with it. But I think it squares quite fully with his writing. There's no one sentence you can point to where he says 'this is a totalitarian society' (the word didn't exist yet), so you have to analyze what he said to get there. The communist society he described was one where communism was forced on the whole population. Just reading the Manifesto makes that clear, and the passages I cite in this video flesh that out more. They describe a society entirely permeated by communism, with no opposition, with communist politics heavily encroaching into the lives of all. Communists and Marx called that a 'free' society. That conception of a free society seems to have come from Rousseau's idea that society should be ruled by the 'general will,' which he laid out in his Social Contract. Once the general will of the people is determined (Rousseau did not say how that process should work, something he shares with Marx), then that general will needs to be forced upon the rest of the public. The general will is a monolithic guiding power that rules all, and that allows nothing to conflict with it. Everyone is 'forced to be free' as Rousseau put it. It's a peculiar conception of freedom. Rousseau acknowledged that, and quickly gave up trying to articulate what actually makes it a form of freedom. But that's the 'free' 'democratic' society Marx was describing that the dictatorship of the proletariat would create. Marx named the ruling idea that would guide the general will: communism. I'm describing totalitarianism. A society where communism shapes everything political. Communism is forced upon everyone to the extent deemed necessary by those in power (again, communists), in order to create a society free of class conflict/oppression. You could think about it this way: in a liberal/capitalist society, if you want to live your life as a communist, you're relatively free to do it. If you want to form a business with communist/socialist principles, go for it. If you want to form a commune, have at it. If you want to participate in politics as a communist, feel free to try it. You can really do pretty much whatever you want with your life, and participate in politics however you want (as long as you don't threaten violence). If you don't want to be political, that's fine too. Liberal societies do not have a vision, an end goal, that they try to push everyone toward. There's no utopia at the end of the tunnel. It's more or less a sandbox design for a society, and the people within them get to decide how they want to live their lives. In a communist society, everyone needs to be communist. That includes Marx's communism, which again forces itself onto the public with the goal of entirely shaping politics in order to eliminate class conflict. People are not cattle, so repression would be needed in order to accomplish that. It's possible that if a communist society existed for a long time, and communism was widely accepted by the public, communists would feel secure enough in their position to give political freedom and control over affairs back to the whole people, but as Bertrand Russell put it: 'this is a distant ideal, like the Second Coming; in the meantime, there is war and dictatorship, and insistence upon ideological orthodoxy.' (History of West. Phil. 790) If I'm wrong about what I just said, I've never seen anyone successfully articulate why - in the comments or anywhere in anything I've read. I think it's the closest we have to a standard explanation for good reason. Marx did endorse democratic practices by the Paris Commune, but that was when democracy brought about a result that he liked (voting was restricted to Paris and held at an especially radical time). I'm not aware of any examples of him endorsing democracy that brought about a result that went against his views. If you only endorse democracy that moves society towards socialism, and you condemn all other examples as 'bourgeois democracy,' it's hard to conclude you're in favor of democracy. I've never seen anyone deal with these things and still claim that he was democratic and not totalitarian. Also when socialists in Marx's time said they should spend their time pushing for gradual reforms, like expanding voting rights to the working class, Marx condemned it. He didn't want workers to have more of a say in a pluralistic, democratic society. He wanted class tensions to build until they exploded, ending with communists taking control of everything. I covered that in my in-depth socialism vid. Last point: I offended some by skipping Marx's economics. Some even say his claims entirely depend on his economics. I think that's an oversimplification. Some of his beliefs aren't verifiable or falsifiable by economics, like the claim that capitalism is the last form of society featuring class conflict, and that the next society will be communist. Also his core beliefs existed before his economics developed. He believed that capitalism was exploitative/alienating, that communism will be the next, preferable society, and he believed in historical materialism early in life (his 20s). He then spent the rest of his life developing his economic theory predicting the end of capitalism that we see in Capital. So his own beliefs did not depend on his economics in order to form. His economic theory came second, appearing to affirm beliefs he already had. That said, if you're interested in his economics, you can find explanations all over the internet. He's less politicized there. I may as well quickly lay out his theory and explain what I mean about it having mistakes. First, he thought that the amount of labor put into a product determines its value. Now imagine someone works for 10 hours. The worker creates product worth 10 hours of labor. But the worker isn't paid that amount. Let's say the worker created $100 worth of products in that 10 hours, but is only paid $50 in wages. The other $50 then is 'surplus value' i.e. profit for whoever owns the business. Crucially, the worker is only paid subsistence wages (from Ricardo's 'iron law of wages'), so the worker struggles and has no path to better their position in society through work. Others will take their job, so the worker can't bargain for more. The business owner then uses the $50 profit 'appropriated' (basically stolen) from the worker to expand their business. If that keeps up, the power dynamics in society will become more exaggerated. Workers stay poor, business owners get richer. They compete with each other, buying more machines, which means they need less human labor. Since labor (according to Marx) creates profit, profit rates fall. Businesses push down wages and lengthen hours to stay competitive. People can't buy what's being produced. A series of increasingly severe economic crises occur. Misery increases, a vast underclass forms, revolts, takes power. The two biggest places it goes wrong, afaik, are 1) Labor doesn't determine the value of a product. More goes into it, like supply, demand, marginal utility, factors relating to competition (or lack of) between firms. 2) He underestimates (really vilifies) the role of leaders (like CEOs) and managers. He doesn't appreciate how much work it takes to start and maintain a successful business, and in his theory the workers get credited with doing almost all the valuable work. There were also political assumptions in Marx's thinking, like the belief that 'capitalists' have a monopoly on political power (impeding reforms) which seems to be wrong. It also didn't make much sense at the time (& makes even less sense now) to define class by your relationship to the means of production, something Schumpeter pointed out ~80 years ago. Marx's theory was built on classical models and was to some extent out-of-date even in his lifetime, which is partially why it was slow to get attention (his writing style didn't help). In Marx's defense, he made many think about capitalism in a new way. Most academics that I've seen point out mistakes simultaneously acknowledge it as a work of genius. And some of his mistakes were also made by the best economists until then, like labor determining value. If you wonder why I didn't say this in the video, it's because to do it right I'd have to introduce Marx's terms (like labor theory of value) and thought it would be burdensome on the video, especially since I wasn't sure if the audience really cared about this stuff. - Ryan @realryanchapman

I love what you're doing by going back to primary sources, rather than repeat copies of copies of interpretations. We need more of this!

You made a mistake. Marx did not say that the working class will become poorer if capital grows (in terms of their material position). He said that it will actually grow but at the cost of their social position. Meaning that the minority at the top will control greater wealth and thus global inequality will increase. You can read it in Wage-Labour and Capital.

Probably the first American channel who explain Marxism without starting with “he caused millions of deaths, communists are like evil etc” or starting to enforce it with low quality communist propaganda. Thanks from Italy, great content

Thank you Ryan. As always your ultra clear spot on explanation for this topic is a must listen. As it’s been for each topic that you’ve taken on.

You forgot to talk about the "withering away of the state" in Marxism. "The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong - into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax." - Friedrich Engels, in "The Origins of The Family, Private Property, and The State."

Hell yea Ryan! Been waiting for a new one to drop!

Many people don't realize how amazing these videos are. I have read a few of these primary sources, but really condensing it all down, and decoding it into laymens terms. So much work here.

I absolutely love this channel. The detailed footnotes, the painstaking references, yet the brevity and lucidity. It gives me hope in humanity!

I would absolutely love to see a video on feudalism. It seems like an important topic for understanding the new emerging market forms of the 19 hundrets

When I want to learn a topic, I start by taking notes on one of your videos. Very well done content!

Great work, I love that you actually present quotations from original texts

Here is Michael Bakunin, the revolutionary anarchist and contemporary of Marx in the International Workingmen’s Association, explaining in 1869 how Marx’s ten-point program in the Communist Manifesto has a built-in tendency to create a totalitarian state. His descriptions feel eerily prescient of the USSR in the 1930s. Marx was fully aware of Bakunin’s criticisms and wilfully chose to ignore them. Instead he had Bakunin expelled: “The reasoning of Marx ends in absolute contradiction…. To appropriate all the landed property and capital, and to carry out its extensive economic and political programs, the revolutionary State will have to be very powerful and highly centralised. The State will administer and direct the cultivation of the land, by means of its salaried officials commanding armies of rural workers organised and disciplined for this purpose. At the same time, on the ruins of the existing banks, it will establish a single state bank which will finance all labour and national commerce.” “It is readily apparent how such a seemingly simple plan of organisation can excite the imagination of the workers, who are as eager for justice as they are for freedom; and who foolishly imagine that the one can exist without the other; as if, in order to conquer and consolidate justice and equality, one could depend on the efforts of others, particularly on governments, regardless of how they may be elected or controlled, to speak and act for the people! For the proletariat this will, in reality, be nothing but a barracks: a regime, where regimented working men and women will sleep, wake, work, and live to the beat of a drum; where the shrewd and educated will be granted government privileges; and where the mercenary-minded, attracted by the immensity of the international speculations of the state bank, will find a vast field for lucrative, underhanded dealings.”

When Ryan drops a video, I stop everything for the following half hour. His breakdowns can’t wait!

I am a recent Ryan convert/ fan/ homie... such well presented info, and so calm... no yelling and raging and name calling. So refreshing, y'all agree?

I love your work so far, Ryan. Please keep it up.

by far the best bottom-up explanation of marxism i have ever listened to. came across your channel a few weeks ago and have been learning a lot

The best characterization of private property is that is property used for capital, in contrast to personal property that has no capital value, such as toothbrushes. Marx was ambiguous of the form of governance, aside from needing to be pro-revolutionary working class.

My main objection was when you characterized Marx and Marxism as totalitarian. Karl Marx did not discuss death camps, concentration camps or the Gulag? Isn't is doubtful whether Marx anticipated events like Lenin's vanguard party and Stalin's purges or the gulag? Marxism was characterized as totalitarian by the Cold War liberals who failed to glean the similarities between Soviet marxism and National Socialism. It was Stalin, Hitler and Mao who were totalitarian and none of them used Marx’ economic theory. The issue is that Marxism, and you take time to clarify the distinction between Marx, Marxists and Marxism, is composed of Marx's works, his sources, and many different historical events and persons. There is Soviet Marxism, there is Eastern Marxism, there is Western Marxism, there is Cuban Marxism, there is American Marxism, and all of these Marxisms can be compared and contrasted to different versions of a "Communist Party." The actual political history cannot be explained simply by Marx's theory! The use of the term 'Marxism' does not refer to totalitarianism because it also refers to the only resistance to totalitarianism. Lastly, Marx did not simply characterize Marxism as composed of either socialists or communists. Did he not at least recognize anarchists? Did he not also include Democrats and the process of democratization? There is a mystified relation between Marxism and totalitarianism. It is disingenuous to claim that the heart of Marx's ideas is the Communist Manifesto - which has been cherry-picked to death - and ignore his major works on economic theory, namely surplus value, while failing to characterize this work holistically. It is also wildly inaccurate to discuss Marxism without addressing Western Marxism.

Well, about your early analysis of the situation in Marx's time vs. Locke's: Your analysis may have been true in the United States and Great Britain, but I'm not sure how true it was in Germany and in Russia, where Marxism was stronger and more popular among workers than in the former two. Germany and Russia weren't liberal countries, both had strong monarchies. And the governments there weren't non-interventionist. They were interventionist - on behalf of the elite. Like in Russia, protest could be dispersed by gunfire wherever they occurred. And, exploitative power structures there predated industrialization, especially in Russia. Russia still had serfdom until the 1860s, and serfs were little better than slaves. So I think the background is a little more complicated than you made it out to be, especially considering that Marx was German.

Thank you for your time and knowledge put into these videos

Ryan, you are a champion of credibility because of your humble and honest approach. I appreciate these videos a ton! Please keep up the good work :)

Vlad here, philosopher. Just want to congratulate Ryan on the video as a step into the subject. Marx of course said that ''philosophy stands to the study of the real world in the same relationship as masturbation stands to real sexual love', and it's not clear what positive role he saw for philosophy. For him it was secondary to empirical inquiry into the logic of capitalism & the sociology of supersession. I highly recommend a tiny taste here on UKposts of Raymond Geuss's lectures on Marx. Raymond is more sympathetic to Marx than I, but his passion for avoiding bullshit & placing us in history is infectious. Congratulations again!

What a great jazzy opening. Love you Chapman. You are a good man trying to lay & splay. Lay & splay. So valuable. It helps me. ... Love you man.

I have been watching your channel over the last few weeks as I just found it and I really enjoy your content. Very educational and appropriate for our current "modern" times here in the USA. I do want to ask you something though. Why do you keep saying Epic when the word is Epoc. They have completely different meanings? Please do keep up the great work you are doing in educating us.

I've learned so much from this channel in the short time since I discovered it. Truly incredible videos filled with a calm unbiased professional explanation on complex subjects. Looking forward to more!

Man, your videos are so good.

Please make more content. I can't get enough!

Heyyyy I requested this! Thank you Mr. Chapman!

Your analysis and your conclusion omitted the current working conditions in the global south and developing nations and how the conditions of the people producing most products live in conditions not dissimilar to the workers of Marx's time. You also omitted the fact that the economic divide between the rich and the poor has grown tremendously. The richest man in Marx's lifetime, I believe was, William Vanderbilt, who in today's money, would have an estimated $6.2 billion. The richest person, as I post this, is Elon Musk, who has $238 billion. It's true global proverty levels have decreased over time, but income inequality is not decreasing. If Marx's goal was to eliminate economic inequality, ensure workers have meaningful jobs, and end the subjugation of working people, Marx's fundemental ideas about and analysis of society still apply to our current conditions. Even though capitalism's appearance has changed shape in some ways, it still functions essentially as it did in Marx's time.

This was really great and seemingly unbiased. I'm kinda disappointed in how simple, ideologically driven, and illogical Marx was. I'm not really sure how young educated people might become so entranced with Marx and Marxism. There are massive leaks in logic for someone who claimed to be devoted to logic and science in his work. He totally neglected to account for people's desire to work in the first place once they are removed from artisan style work. Even though he talks about those effects directly, he somehow forgets by the time he gets to "according to their ability and need". Why would anyone want to continue working to their ability if their needs are met. The surplus of labor/property is still going to be created and if you only get what you need out of it you'd still feel ripped off or demotivated. People need reasons to work to create more than they need to. Family, status, luxuries, etc. Those needs are not unique to capitalism. As for historicism; he couldn't see the future, but communism always fails and hierarchies never cease to exist.

This is a fantastic channel. Keep at it!

Thanks! Very Informative. On a side note, what's that software/tool that you are using for streaming the books and the highlight feature within it for illustration?

But Marx's economics is a key part of his ideology because that is where the empirical facts and analysis that underlie his scientific, materialist conceptualizations, Marx's argument lives or dies on the strength of his economics. This is why the man spent so much time on it. His early philosophical writings in 1844 provide the motivation for his life's work and his political stance and theoretical paradigm, but they have little to say on the validity of his arguments that supposed to be *scientific* not philosophical.

Also in Marx's times physical punishments were practised by employers. And not just in his times, my grandpa was telling me long time ago that his father working in Škoda factory in Czechoslovakia was once - for "working too slowly" - hung by his hands from ceiling for three hours in the entrance hall of the building so everyone saw him as an example. Similar things were happening before second world war all over the Europe. I hope we will never get back to it, but in this world you really never know. God bless.

I mean as it is now we don't have a multi-party democracy. On top of that we have oligarchy, a system where politicians are openly bought by the rich and where political action corresponds almost not at all with public opinion.

I have binge watched each of your videos. Your detailed analysis without getting into the politics and slick editing really gave me excellent education into poly-sci. Thank you and keep up the good work.

I have just recently heard of Marxism and was extremely curious to what it was. I am not a 'political, statistical, religious..ect' person. In all honesty it's so complicated I can't understand most things in the slightest to even try to learn about it more. I have comprehension issues, learning disabilities, But you have managed to explain this in the simplest way possible that I understood everything that you said because not only did you read the words would you elaborated more on the words. Even examples at the end. Thank you❤️

The extreme poverty rate is interesting. I mean what is extreme poverty? To me, it seems a big portion of the global south live in extreme poverty way more than 9% so my guess is on how these papers classify extreme poverty. Relatively speaking compared to 1800 it seems conditions have improved but I don't think that's a good enough for our modern society

Only now stumbled onto your excellent channel- just subscribed! Greetings from Greece.

Only just seeing this now. Your understanding, and presentation of, the topics you discuss, tends to be a breath of fresh air. Keep going.

Ryan seems like someone who is genuinely interested in presenting material in as much of an unbiased view as possible. Some mistakes were made on this topic. It's hard, if not impossible to cover a topic as dense as Marxism in 32 mins. Go to the source if you want to learn more!

Haven’t seen the channel before but I like that you are someone who reads a lot. I’ve never actually seen someone define specifically what Marxism is. I just know it’s part of that bubble with socialism, communism, Maoist Stalinist Leninist stuff. I subscribed.

Amazing video and great work!!! More like this!

Terrific treatment of a big subject. Love it.

As someone who grew up in communist Yugoslavia it is surreal watching this , because all of the things mentioned were put in practice here. All production became state owned under management of the working class for the working class with profit removed from equation. Sounds good right , who would have thought it would lead to poverty , misery and war. Marx forgot one thing thou , proletariat are still human beings and are at core no better or worse than bourgeoisie. With human greed no longer part of the process , workers started doing just bare minimum each day ( no owner no pay raise - no reason to more than basics ) , same workers were in control of decision making ( why give yourself more work if its not resulting into extra profit ) , no one would ever get fired , social benefits were used than used some more and than some more ( people would spent months each year just on payed sick leave ) , people will bring/hire their family and friends even if there is no real need for new workers. Pretty soon that same factory that belonged to workers somehow now belonged to no one , and stealing became issue. They became so inefficient that factories consumed more than they produced and when everything was spent hyperinflation hit and their work officially became what it was for a while worthless waste of time. Everything collapsed , everyone lost their jobs , money lost value completely , everything that was not pinned to the floor was stolen in resulting chaos.... than war... Grand idea of great intellectual , completely removed from the BASIC FUCKING HUMAN NATURE

Thank you for breaking this down very well explained 👍

Great lesson!! I have a question..are you able to explain what economists see as the errors in Marx theories of economics?

For the graph that is used at @30:30, I recommend people what the video "Steven Pinker and the Failure of New Optimism ft. We're in Hell" by Unlearning Economics since it does a deeper dive in to poverty measures and some of the possible concerns about them. The key part of the video starts at around 19:20, but I recommend the whole thing or at least the run-up for context. I really do appreciate the videos Ryan and I think you do your best to make them as unbiased as possible, particularly in the explanation of the theories.

Hi. It is really a bummer that you left out the Economics of Marx. This is one of the fundamental reasons why Marx is worth paying attention to because you can actually make scientific models that not only model but predict reality. You really cannot get more scientific than that. Case in point: the declining rate of profit. Dr. Paul Cockshott, a former professor of computer science, has an excellent video about it: Look for "Why labour theory of value is right" and "The falling rate of profit" under the channel "Paul Cockshott". PS. I'm not posting links because UKposts may hide the comment.

Amazing ! Thanks for clarifying so much.

There are so many fantastic things about this video- great job! Your approach to accurate understanding is amazing and so important in a solid education.

I feel as though the idea that not having an opposing party that is trying to push an alternative economic system is totalitarian or divorced from democracy, is not a particularly fair take. I’m not sure how many countries have a set up like that. Republicans and Democrats are both capitalist, Tories and Labour are both capitalist. I feel as though this is a particular criticism is one levied at socialist systems but for any society to progress it can’t be debating the basis of its entire economy all the time. Either way thank you for the video and research on a topic a lot of ppl won’t bother to touch

Ryan, you and James Lindsay have been insanely helpful in my goal to understand more theory. IM so glad there is someone to break down these concepts for the layman.

Amazing! Very well done!

Outstanding! Subscribed!

most underrated channel on youtube

I don't agree that just because only socialists are allowed that the political system is totalitarian. Liberal democracies don't allow fascists, monarchists, and sometimes socialists to have a say in government and in most liberal democracies the only choices are different types of liberalism and we seem to be ok with that. Why does the standard change when a hypothetical socialist country doesn't let capitalists, monarchists, and fascists have a say in government?

Thank you for your wonderful videos mate - one of the few channels which presents these topics as neutrally as possible (especially when it comes to "radical" ideologies). I have one question about this video - why did you choose the declining global poverty graph to suggest that the predictions about capitalism development laid out by Marx were not realized? I do agree with the general point (things did not go according to the prediction) but I am not sure that this graph is the way to go given how controversial it is by itself (and I assume that you are well aware of this). What made you choose that?

Have you considered an analysis on Bonapartism? From what I know on the subject of Marx and Engles the activites of Napoleon III seemed to kick them into a higher gear.

Very important video as always, giving the floor to a useful expression of Marx's ideas to many who may not have ever read his works, but keep hearing him or variations of his ideas invoked. The explanation of "Property" at the beginning was so useful as a foundation for how Marx engaged with that concept. Just reading through the text you highlighted (and the text around that), it was eye-opening to see the terms that are used in so many ways in the modern context.

I just found your channel and I love how you present the information in a manner that is educational and presented in an unbiased manner. Thank you

Thank you for explaining this. Excellent Job 👍

This explanation was EXCELLENT! Very through. Subscribed! 😁

I love this guy for actually giving references for almost everything he explains.

1:03 The distinction between Private and Personal Property is deceptively solid. For example, is a UKposts channel REALLY personal property? Will it be seized by the revolution?

This is excellent work, bravo.

Ryan, I appreciate the sobriety with which you approach these important subjects. Would you be willing to debate/have a chill discussion with Vaush about the proletariat and bourgeoisie in the context of Marxist thought? Also, the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean dictator the way we use the word dictator. Marx just meant "ruled by", which would be democratic as it is 99% of the population

I hear Ryan's theme song in the beginning and my day get's a little better.

I've got a little bit of minor push back regarding the comparison between the term Marxism and the term Christianity. I don't think the fact that the pattern between how the term christianity is used to tie together schools of thought from those inspired by Christ necessarily means that that pattern is a good one and should similarly be used with respect to Marxism or various other isms. Additionally, there's a key difference between the ideas of christianity and Marxism - we actually have a good idea what Marx believed. We don't know that any of the sayings attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him or in any way reflect what he taught. We can't be all that sure he even existed, though I think he probably did. Therefore, any form of christianity is necessarily based on what people inspired by him believe. However, we know damn well Marx existed and we're quite certain that the writings attributed to him were actually written by him. I think if something is said to be Marxist, there needs to be at least some tangible connection to what Marx believed, even if there's a substantial amount of stuff layered on that. But ideas that are far removed from anything spoken or written by Marx, even if said to be Marx-inspired might better be described using at least a hiphenated term - Marxism-XYZism. The term Marxism is thrown around a lot to describe ideas that don't seem very Marxist, at least to my admittedly limited understanding. If the term is stretched too thin, it doesn't really mean much.

Thank you for a concise, back-to-the-original lecture on Marx/Engels and their political/economic philosophy. I eagerly await you applying the same treatment on Adam Smith and the original philosophy of Capitalism. You know... in a dialectic kind way. ;p

I was a carpenter. Craftsmen don't keep their products, they sell them. Wages are the price of labor and mutually agreed upon. How does eliminating private property help a worker?

I aspire to be as well informed as you are. Im trying my best but especially modern philosophy and politics are dense subjects. Thanks for the breakdowns!

Ryan Chapman should have a discussion with Dr. Richard Wolff

Very cool video, it definitely helped clear some confusion

I would enjoy essays that examine the primary internal contradictions and internally caused break-downs within all of the political and social systems you have covered.

Thank you for the interesting video. It does have one giant problem/inaccuracy/misunderstanding in it, so let me point it out: you misunderstand what Marx means by private property and abolishment of private property. Arguments: 1. Private property, what does it mean for Marx. At least not what Locke means, unlike you claim,. Lockes Labour mixing argument is interesting, but this is not what Marx means by private property or his wish to abolish private property. Proof: For example Marx states that “in capitalism private property has already been abolished for nine-tenths of the population." I’m very sure he didn’t mean the picked apples or sown shirts of the working class didn't exist. No, it should be clear that what Marx means by private property is private capital: means of production like factories and ownership in them like stocks. So rest assured Marx isn’t going to come and steal the shirt off your back and then declare that that is the just thing to do. It should be also clear from the fact that he wants to abolish private property. If private property is capital, it is the main way a capitalist can steal the workers wealth. Im the case of ownership of apples (at least apples picked by one's-self) there is no similar case or argument to be found. I seriously wonder as you have read a lot of Marx for this video, how you came away with such a wrong conception of the meaning of “private property” for Marx. 2. One could very well ask, if Marx didn’t mean ownership of your shirt of your apples, why did he also want to abolish trade? (I take it must be obvious to everyone why agriculture (especially ownership of land) and transport are forms of capital. The answer is quite simple: trading in surplus goods turns to capital. So if you sow a shirt and sell it, no problem. But if you hire 100 people to pick apples, sell them and make a profit off of their work, the apples also become a part of capital. This is what Marx thought a problem. 3. Defining Marxism just through the dynamic of oppressed and oppressors is far too vague. This dynamic goes for liberalism as well: The nobility are the oppressors in feudalism and the merchants the oppressed, so we need a revolution (f.ex. the French Revolution) to liberate itself. Yet is seems quite clear liberalism is not a form of Marxism. Perhaps add workers exploitation through private ownership of the means of production to your definition. Would make it a more valid definition.

During the first half you made a rather decent job, but your representation of "Communism" is very wrong. Why? You even cite from Marx' "Critique of the Gotha Programme", but somehow you manage to present the position of the German socialist party (which Marx criticizes, hence the title of that letter!) as Marx' own position... Nothing you say from that chapter onwards has anything to do with Marxism, but is a gross misrepresentation.

He also makes the mistake by thinking everyone takes pride in their work. I have worked with some people who couldn’t have cared less about their quality of work. The world is full of two kinds of people, givers and takers.

Very intelligent guy you are. Thank you for the videos. Keep them coming 👏🏼

so he said the owners are oppressing the workers and to solve that let the government actually do the same thats some logic

I will just say, that Marx's actual prediction that wealth will become more concentrated in the hands of the rich, is actually proving true. A lot of economists do actually agree with Marxist economists, but only primarily on his reasoning on why capitalism is bad. Because Marx's predictions are actually holding true, people call this stage (particularly post-2008 financial crash) "late-stage capitalism"

Your content is stellar, Ryan. I have a core question about Marx's definition of "private property." You make a point that he sees it as different than we might view it today. But your definition seems more to align with Locke's and not in a way I've understood Marx. Marx seems to conceive of property as something that "exists" and doesn't give much explanation on how property got "created." Could you give a source for where Marx builds his definition of how private property is defined and originally created? Thanks!

im so happy i found this channel

This is probably one of the top most underrated Chanels for political commentary out there,

I wish I could have had watched this when I was in college.

Excellent Explanation and Presentation... Will Definitely Follow ✅

Thank you for your channel as it is very informative. Can you please explain what the critques of Das Kapital were and which economist showed Karl Marx s ideas to be incorrect. Perhaps you could make a video about this. Also I would love to intervew you on my channel if you have time to go into detail of Karl Marx and Communism.

@5:20 You bring it up with Locke but somewhat skirt around the issue when it comes to Marx. Just as Locke believed there was something of a person in the product of his labour, Marx intuitively felt that a worker who was not involved in all stages of production (such as the assembly line worker who only does one little part) was alienated from his labour... Thus alienation is not simply a material question of "who profits" from the labour or "who controls the working conditions" but rather a spiritual divorce from the act of creation. Marx read Locke but he also was also coming out of Romantic and especially German Idealism traditions and famously considered his writing to be the material inversion of the Hegelian dialectic of Spirit. Pax Hegel, the workers under capitalism essentially represented the Concrete and the bourgeoisie were the Abstract, as they owned the Capital but did none of the work and did not truly have their stamp on the creative act (in the Lockean sense), and so Marx's belief that capitalism was only a moment on the historical stage mirrored Hegel's idea that the wants of the concrete and the abstract would resolve into each other and transcend and synthesize into a new historical moment. Marx's self conception of somehow standing outside of this material history as a prognosticator similarly draws from Hegel's concept of the "great man of history" (which, for Hegel, was Napoleon... a force that stands outside of history and imposes himself upon it). These idealist (in the sense of philosophical idealism) positions became much more muted and subject to critique in Marx's writings post-1848... the Marx that emerged in his late writings was much more nuanced, circumspect and qualified and was thus much richer. Unfortunately, Marx's legacy on the the world is not his superior contribution (Grundrisse, Eighteenth Brumaire, Das Kapital etc) to social scientific thought, but his earlier and much less interesting revolutionary thinking (due in large part to the history of the Soviet Union and the Cold War).

I appreciate your neutrality with this explanation, and feel that I have a clearer understanding now.

I mean, he was very vague in the governance, so it might not necessarily be a totalitarian state, since other than the dominant Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc. interpretation you also have other libertarian and democratic ones. The fact the the proletariat becomes the majority and overthrow the capitalists does not necessitate that a vanguard party has to come to the rescue and establish a socialist state, it could easily range from that to winning majority in liberal democracy from proletariat vote, to decentralization of the state into a confederation of syndicates, or local governments run by proletariat.

Gracias! Please make a video on Anarchism if possible as well! 🤘

Great channel 👍 would love to see you cover the Frankfurt school and Fabian socialism, particularly addressing the crazy conspiracy theories surrounding these topics and clearing the air. It’s very hard to find fair, non conspiratorial takes/information about it. Thanks 🙏

5:34 there's so much truth in this passage by Marx. The alienated labor is even worse when you know you're being pay a crap wages, work long hours or part time, and have no good medical insurance, etc...

Great stuff again!

1) It is pretty important for understanding Marx properly that he did NOT think that the appropriation of surplus value by the capitalist is theft. He keeps insisting that the labor market, like all functioning markets, is in fact free and fair (by the capitalist societies own definition of the terms, at least) and continues to analyze why actual, real freedom of private property still leads to a class society, and necessarily so. 2) You say in your pinned comment that Marx' economics are subsequent to his politics which is a pretty bad misunderstanding. Marx' entire philosophy is based on his observation that the material conditions of humans lives determine their conciousness -and thus their societies- and that the societies of today have formed their own material conditions through production and historical development (that is what he calls "historical materialism" in "The German Ideology"). This means that economics, i.e. the way humans distribute labor and goods, is the basis from which most if not all other aspects of society emerge in Marx' view. 3) Also in your pinned comment you criticise Marx' economics with terms like supply and demand which are absolutely integral to his actual economics and which he talks about constantly. Seriously dude, you should not give a lecture about a guys theory if you haven't read or understood the most integral parts of it (READ CAPITAL!!).

When you said that eventually, Capitalism survived much longer and people lived much better than Marx predicted, it should be added that this is mostly because capitalists, pressured by their Marxists counterpart in their respective countries + the anxiety of a revolution, and the post-WWII USSR at the doorstep accepted to compromise leading to things such as social security, healthcare, in most European countries for instance.

Great work, Ryan. It is a privilege to listen to your analysis and you synthesize into easily digestible portions. E Pluribus Unum

Thank you; you just saved me a lot of time.

This was the best explanation of Marxism I’ve found in over 4 years of trying to get a better understanding of it. Thank you for putting in the effort to learn and teach!