Comments by "" (@soulcapitalist6204) on "Ryan Chapman" channel.

  1.  @asielnorton345  1) Marx's work was not intellectual. Marx avoided intellectual discourse and scrutiny and sought to impress normatives of violence on illiterate and innumerate German working class. 2) Kapital is 3 volumes of normative demagogy of economics and presents no valid economic theory nor new information. It charades as if economics and this is only effective to folks who have never picked up an econ book. 3) Marx does not predict future society, he claims that this is predictable through a bogus philosophical butchery of dialectic, his historical materialism. Marx prescribes rather than predict. Marx calls for extended, brutal state capitalism and repressive politburo dictatorship in Critique of the Gotha Program and Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee, respectively.
    10
  2.  @asielnorton345  You can additionally read Marx's zur Judenfrage to learn Marx's racist basis of his classist demagogy in Manifesto. Years earlier, all of that bourgeoisie bit referenced jews in Marx's writing. This moots Marx being a jew or not very devout one. These people were bigots, typical of anticapitalist Germans until reform after WW2. Read Engels' Conditions for more bigotry, or how about marxian theory of asiatic mode of production? Race is class #1 - the latter proposals of Marx's revise this, especially in German zeitgeist.
    4
  3. This idea is not possible. The claim that there is a basis of production is a claim that a government enforces such a basis. This is why Marx's allusion to stateless communism (Critique of the Gotha Program part 1) is utopian, being both impossible to achieve and impossible to measure.
    4
  4. This is nonsense fallacy about personal experiences, happiness and brutal authoritarianism. Any soviet was abrogated the most conventional human rights and this was hated so substantially that the 1991 referendum to end socialism and establish capitalism was nearly unanimous.
    4
  5. Here's some Karl Marx to help you cut the bullshit about conflation of marxism with totalitarianism. Marx's dialectic was indeed between liberal social democracy and totalitarian communist dictatorship: "The democrats will either work directly towards a federated republic, or at least, if they cannot avoid the one and indivisible republic they will attempt to paralyze the central government by granting the municipalities and provinces the greatest possible autonomy and independence. In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc."
    4
  6. This was a great comment as a complement to the vid. Great job. Marx refers to liberal democracies as "free" states (US, pre napoleanic FR - CotGP pt 4), but since his improvement was over dictatorship models, marxist ideas are inverted from what we value like democracy (no elected government officials or regional reps), freedom (highly centralized prole dictatorship) , career (alienation) and employment (exploitation) or societies and his own idea communist (in his Critique of the Gotha Program). "They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc." I'll take your challenge: "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." Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League provides the best bet available: "...the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority." "...it cannot under any circumstances be tolerated that each village, each town and each province may put up new obstacles in the way of revolutionary activity, which can only be developed with full efficiency from a central point" "As in France in 1793, it is the task of the genuinely revolutionary party in Germany to carry through the strictest centralization." Of course, this tips the context unequivocally toward extreme totalitarian dictatorship in the statement of Marx later (CotGP, pt 4): "Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." There is no such thing as an orthodox marxism which does not include totalitarian formula. In reality, this is hard to escape with any collectivist ideas.
    4
  7.  @Dominikmj  Bollocks. 1) Marx and Engels were autocratic activists. 2) Marx was not an economist - the only philosophers which focus on topics like capitalism are economists. 3) Marx presented sophistry and not valid philosophy based on the standard of his time or for the 2000 years preceding his time (socratic philosophy). 4) The correct title for Marx was a "revolutionary" - an activist. 5) Yes. This activism was for autocracy/totalitarianism/dictatorship and strictly not by any means for equal rights or freedom. Not a chance. 6) To wit, in part 1 of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx describes his ideation as imposing "unequal right", shitting on your claim based on not reading his words. He dedicates part 4 to how his ideation of communism is dictatorship and specifically not free. 7) in Critique of the Gotha Program, marx debuts totalitarian state capitalist dictatorship 8) and in Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee, he debuts the brutal politburo dictatorship institutional design 100% of marxist tradition socialists conformed to. 9) Marx was not an unclear author in the translations available in English. 10) Marx was not a contradictory author and maintained the above solution without contradiction for the 20ish years between the works referenced above. 11) Lastly Lenin acknowledged Marx to the effect of state capitalism and politburo by referencing the above works of Marx (and Critique of the Erfurt Program of Engels)
    4
  8.  @lifecloud2  #1 Who has built on Marx? Marxism is steeped in ideology and building on it is shunned as revisionism. Marx's quality of philosophy is and always was substandard for economics or sociology, philosophy or political science and these studies were never aware of Marx during his career. At no point had Marx contributed anything to the academic fields I list there, not even posthumously. I'm curious which marxist revisionist has seemed remotely competent in any. Sounds impossible on a marxist basis because of the poor quality of philosophy in the marxist tradition, whatsoever. I struggle to believe any rational philosopher would tolerate marxism as philosophy and not crude demagogy. Name this neomarxist contributer and name this influential or important marxist theory, whatsoever. #2 Where does Marx propose a piecework basis of labor compensation? I'll be damned if you inform me of the first major contradiction in I have found in Marx's theory. Where did Marx write what you claim is marxian? Marx proposes need based compensation and not work based (in his Critique of the Gotha Program part 1). Next, marxian economics is temporal and not based directly on commodity output - Socially Necessary Labor Time is marxian microeconomics and approaches productivity by overallocating labor (universal employment), so I suggest Marx is ambivalent to commodity production efficiency in deference to this universal employment. You have to read more Marx before guessing about people's conclusions concerning his work. American politicians reject Marx because his ideas will violate American's constitutional civil rights. Marxist communism is centralized state dictatorship (Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee) - state capitalism (Critique of the Gotha Program), and that shit's illegal here. American business people also know far better than Marx's ignorant 19th century no-working ass on the topics of human resources, business administration, microeconomics, human rights, and industrial psychology. They work with scientific method and not low-brow cheap demagogy like Marx. Do yourself a favor and critically examine any given work of Marx's for the quality of the philosophy entailed. The shit is not philosophy. Normative delivery of fallacy by a chalatan of economics is called sophistry. Name the theory of Marx's which transcends complete bullshit aimed at stupid (illiterate and innumerate) 19th century manual laborers.
    4
  9.  @t00bgazer  Bollocks. This video is pretty well done. You people are the ones without the Marx reading and this is how obvious your propaganda is different from what the man wrote. You probably believe all the propaganda, like that Marx did not call for brutal dictatorship under state capitalism or that marxism is some stateless bullshit or that marx analyzed capitalism/economics.
    3
  10. ​ @1990alone Social Democracy is capitalism and not socialism. We can know ithis with certainty because all social democracies have laws banning the state from engagement in socialism - the allocation of labor or of goods by the state or the organization of private institutions by the state (eg workplace democracy mandates) Additionally, these nations all committed to capitalist economic scholarship and rejected socialist claims of economic advice. The populace of social democracy has rarely if ever put socialists into seats in their commons following Germany's mistakes in 1932.
    3
  11. The $100M fortune of Vanderbilt at the time he died is adjusted to $2.9T in 2023.
    3
  12. Marx's economics was deliberately garbage. Marx selected debunked ideas of previous economic philosophers which had mostly lost in dialectic analysis to social democracy and capitalist ideation and reintroduces them in a death throe for socialism which was disfavored on the economic topic for a decade before Marx's career. Since Marx struggled with basic algebra and with philosophical standards (honesty), there was no hope to have any useful analysis out of Marx, anyhow. To the contrary, the totality of Marx's work makes zero contribution to the field of economics and made no contribution at any time since his debuting them. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not looked into academic economics. Anyone thinking science is entailed in marxist analysis should look into the economists who forced Marx to pretend he had a scientific basis - Carl Menger, John Stuart Mill, Leon Walras, David Ricardo... these were the people who cast a shadow on Marx in economics such that Marx was never heard of outside his own circle of gullible, ignorant fans. All of Marx's work was low-brow demagogy to make marginally literate and innumerate lower working class upset enough to get shot down in the streets in 1848.
    3
  13. Not logic. Communism has no play because the ideas are stupid and rationale is childish. That is within liberal social democracy. Nearly all have some sort of marxist party - all such parties are hated (votes for their opposition; no numbers in national commons) The institutional design of a marxist state - single party offering only communism, top-down dictatorship providing command economy, bans on capitalism - our right to private, plural economic self-determination - this is what Marx used to force a single viewpoint across a communist nation. He insisted on no elected officials in governme - nothing like a social democracy where people shit on communists for being idiots who still promote shit philosophy - the worst ever taken seriously in all history.
    3
  14. ​ @potheo1192  USSR was a marxist communist state, dufus. That totalitarian bullshit is not like United States - most capitalist. US has the oldest commune tradition in the developed/social democratic world. It is marx and marxists who disapprove of voluntary communes because this is a delusion of self-governance (Address to the Communist League) and critical utopianism (Manifesto).
    3
  15. Marx was a butcher of philosophy in his body of work. It's funny to hear his aims described as exploring logic when he most brutally butchered socratic standards of rational philosophy. He also butchered hegelian dialectic with his idea (dialectic materialism) that dialectic was somehow social phenomenon versus a contrived intellectual process. As an overarching example, Marx submits several ad lapidems by reviving debunked theory and ignoring the emiricism which deprecated them. It makes me laugh reading Marx described as having pursued empiricism when he cowered so desperately away from the empirical methods of his orthodox economic colleagues of the time. I more customarily understand Marx to be a case in point as to the superiority of empirical methods over the heterodox normative approaches used throughout marxian theory.
    3
  16. These are perhaps history's worst philosophers in sociology, economics and political science.
    3
  17. Marxist theory is stupid demagogy. There's nothing to exploitation, for example. You want to examine it like it's actual theory. Marx just swapped out the word employment with exploitation and people who like complaining about shit that everyone else likes were the only ones - are still the only ones - who take it seriously.
    3
  18.  @jonrwert  It is not advisable to take these ignorant ideas of Marx's seriously. For example, all of this which you think is brilliant about "exploitation" is just the fact that Marx used that word instead of the preexisting economic term "employment". They are 100% the same. This is because Marx was not an economist nor intellectual. He was trying to rile up ignorant people into his authoritarian revolution.
    3
  19.  @lifecloud2  No you don't. When? You and your degree don't dare to disagree with me above ☝🏾
    3
  20. Kapital is not important because it contains no ideas which are new or consequential to economics and was never considered consequential. It was even useless to those who tried out his theory of communist society. Marx was a revolutionary and not a philosopher nor economist. He could barely do algebra which made him unable to critically engage economics of his period. Kapital and all of his economic works are pseudoeconomics used to make his revolution seem more credible to uneducated workers.
    2
  21. Only liberalism is a philosophy and should not be confused with social democracy's political blocs: liberal and conservative.
    2
  22.  @raymondhartmeijer9300  Private property is not just personal; it is commercial. The proposal otherwise is marxist apologetics and abrogates conventions (like UNCHR) on human rights related to property ownership and the rights of owners to proceeds from said.
    2
  23.  @stenbom  You must struggle with math. Because middle class is determined by net adjusted median income per household by purchasing power parity, middle class households will be households of the same purchasing power, forever. This is not the same as saying American purchasing power is stagnated because the same people are not middle class. Only unclassed median incomes can show this trend.
    2
  24. You people haven't read and studied Marx and for this reason you have ignorant ideas about what he claimed. Marx clearly and unequivocally advocated for totalitarian dictatorship his entire literary career. The form of his dictatorship is just as claimed in this video - a central committee dictates to an appointed and not elected congress which controls almost everything. Some aspects of work are controlled by worker's councils in his theory and only these leaders are elected. They take the dictate of the state and no opposite way entailing public representation: "At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers’ clubs under a directorate established at the movement’s center of operations."
    2
  25.  @LirumLarumLarum  Must be a shitpaper arts degree, correct? This is like a flattard with a physics degree or a creationist with a biology degree: charlatan. Primary source trumps whatever socialists or marxists think, these days or otherwise. These people are ignorant and unethical, dishonest and lazy, uncited and uncitable. Highlighting Marx's own beliefs, directly from him in his clear and unequivocal wording for how ignorant and unethical it was and how far it falls short of basic philosophical standards is an exposé of a 19th century sophist and charlatan of an economist. Sounds like fair play to me. If the work of Marx is defensible, then defend it. Your study should provide the ammo if it was. My study provides my ammunition and you've yet to contest any of it per those quotes, whether from this video or my commentary. You can't. If you try, you know someone who has also studied Marx and actual economics could crush that effort, likely with Marx's crystal clear language.
    2
  26.  @kitsune630  That is a description of state capitalism, ignoramus. It describes the capitalistic nature of socialism and early stage communism which you said was never contributed by Marx. "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." You are illiterate, as we can see. That shit is precisely state capitalism and we can know this because Lenin coined state capitalism in reference to part one and this quote (in his 'State and Revolution'). Illiteracy and minimal reading is the reason you marxists are so ignorant about your own philosophy. That, and dishonesty. You people simply won't admit to clearly worded normative descriptions like above or the clearly worded references to it by Lenin and Stalin.
    2
  27. Then again, appealing to the emotions of stupids is timeless, so marxism is still a thing.
    2
  28. ​ @francismarion6400 Socialism is actually judged based on who owns institutions controlling the microeconomy. You have the same issue that this video has: nothing justifies that you guys generalize or conflate any of these philosophies. It's incompetent. For example, by claiming fascism and national socialism were fascism, this video conflates to polar political economies under one term for a political economy. You do the same by calling all of these socialist. Mussolini's philosophy preserved capitalist allocation in Italy and actually propped up capitalist equities to a greater extent than we will ever see again. This isn't what the nazis did. By 1937 if you were a failing enterprise, the nazis wouldn't bail you out, they would expropriate your company and roll it into an SOE like we will never see again in the Reichswerke Hermann Göring. That was socialist political economy, not due to what Hitler or anybody studied, but based on the policies 3rd Reich rolled out in 1933 and their "national socialist revolution".
    2
  29. You give Marx too much credit.
    2
  30. A movement against private equity.
    2
  31. It is division of labor (marxian alienation) and not unions or welfare which has improved the lot of workers in social democracies. Proof is in United States - #1 for working families, globally and where unions were hated in the same 50 years which proved out this predominance. US is a world leader in Median Disposable Household Income, which is the single most significant statistic for employed.
    2
  32. Too bad that is a bunch of bullshit tautology designed to appeal to the emotions of illiterate German working class. The issue with dictatorship of the proles is that it's actual dictatorship directly opposed to the social democracy everyone prefers to live under, including "workers"
    2
  33.  @inovakovsky  The human right to own a business is not arbitrary. Human rights exist as freedoms to operate at our own discretion without abrogating the freedoms of others. This means that if me and friends, family or employees endeavor to operate a business, it is an unethical role of state to abrogate those rights of free association where no rights of others are violated.
    2
  34. Freedom for governments.
    2
  35.  @jamaldarwand1935  1) The working conditions are substantially better. Your position is based on hyperbolic complaints. If it was based on reality, you would seem like a whiny, naive and sheltered soul complaining about the freedoms of others to make better decisions than you do. 2) Welfare and social services in general is a capitalist approach which long predates the implementation of marxism, debunking that it's any reaction to ignorant marxists in Russia. We can know this for certain from the Gotha and Erfurt saga of marxists rejecting welfare in deference to socialism 50 years before the soviet putsch. 3) You and Marx are ignorant, yet pretending you have done some empirical research, travel or critical thought to conclude wealth creates poverty. Wealth creates wealth and not poverty. It does not create poverty elsewhere than wealth. Wealth is also a creator of wealth in developing countries. We We can know this for certain because the countries which are empirically growing in wealth at the fastest rates are the same productive developed nations which you claim are impoverished by trade or foreign wealth. We can know this for certain and showcase ignorant socialist hypocrisy at the same time. The socialist will attempt to sustain the claim that sanctions versus socialist states results in their failure to impress anyone with their wealth. This effect should be opposite according to your stupid premise that developing productive nations get poorer. Cuba and Venezuelan wealth production should have shot up rather than collapsing under a socialist mode of production and distribution.
    2
  36. One of the worst philosophies ever expounded so far or taken so seriously. Sophistry, actually.
    2
  37. There's plenty of primary source reviewed here, homeboy. Lens is irrelevant under primary source review. On the matter of totalitarian philosophy, the facts of this video and Marx's career are incontrovertable. If by lens you mean the typical socialist who claims Marx was against the state and pro-democracy, that is simply blissful ignorance from folks who lack primary source reading of Marx's most consequential works.
    2
  38. British marxists are revisionists, however. They have an old eventualist tradition which would make knowing Marx by their leadership misleading. This video does better - primary source is king. Marx staked his career on unmistakable statist totalitarian dictatorship. Which Brits affirm this fact? Most dream of a marxism without the marxism - without the totalitarian dictatorship by an unelected central committee and commons.
    2
  39. ​ @ryebread3417  I call bollocks. 1) Marxism is indeed communism and normative theories advocating implementation of communism, strictly. No works of Marx's fall outside this characterization. For example, marxian dialectical materialism is a normative claim concerning the inevitability of communism, specifically. It is a repudiation of hegelian dialectic methods which would require socialist approaches like Marx's to have tipped their king to capitalist approaches by the 1820s-1840s. 2) Communism is the dotp. Marx describes development of his communism in stages in part 1 (Critique of the Gotha Program). The coining of dotp is unequivocally the revolutionary and early stages of this theory. The policy prop Marx describes in part 1 is dictatorial. The political institution he called for (Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League and The Civil War in France) - the politburo/central committee is dictatorial.
    2
  40. Gimme a break. This shit is about Karl Marx, guy. He was a notorious statist who was unequivocal about the value of centralized totalitarianism within his own theory which he juxtaposed dialectically to social/liberal democracy: "The democrats will either work directly towards a federated republic, or at least, if they cannot avoid the one and indivisible republic they will attempt to paralyze the central government by granting the municipalities and provinces the greatest possible autonomy and independence. In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc."
    2
  41.  @DecMurphy  You present the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam - a lie. There's no nuance to what Marx presented - it is clear and unequivocal. Your claim of nuance cannot be backed with quotes of Marx and is a falsehood which I debunked by quoting Marx and how clearly and unmistakably he advocates totalitarian dictatorship. Marxism is not analytical. You are sorely mistaken. Marxism is dogmatic, featuring a core principle of non-revisionism. The implementation of marxist communism and the philosophical registration of Marx's dogma by Lenin in his State and Revolution debunks your falsehood about any dynamism in marxism. When you propose that bollocks, like a marxist, you ignore that there are presently several million practitioners of economics, social sciences, sociology, industrial engineering, industrial psychology, human resources and business management - all the topics to which Marx contributed irredeemable bullshit and not analysis nor nuance. On the contrary to the megalomania you and Marx share, several orders of magnitude greater nuance and analysis are offered in the social democratic academic mainstream than is availed from Marx's career and the combined careers of marxists. This is why marxism is regarded as heterodoxy in all these fields - Marx was far out of his depth commenting on any. Marxists have not helped - these are the least cited/citable clowns in economics or sociology because of their laziness and dogmatic marxism.
    2
  42.  @DecMurphy  The goal of socialism has always been to convince stupid people (literally illiterate and/or innumerate) to revolt and hand power to state know-it-alls. "Collective ownership of the means of production" is a description of totalitarian dictatorship, granted collective is necessarily goverment and the means of production entails our entire economic lives which ethical government (UNCHR) abdicates to our autonomy.
    2
  43. Yes. We just need to be smarter to understand how good totalitarianism is for us. Sure.
    2
  44. This is such ignorant commentary. Get it through you thick skull: Karl Marx prescribed single party politburo dictatorship with no elected state officials - no democracy, dictatorship. Marx prescribed brutal state capitalism inflicting unequal rights on the workers, forever. He describes totalitarianism in plain language. The utopian standard Marx raised for state capitalism to devolve is impossible, so marxism proposes state capitalism forever.
    2
  45.  @halfjack2758  This is not an example of functional economics. A nation which has to force people to stay to endure state orchestrated economic torture is not working. This is dysfunction and not working.
    1
  46.  @somenerdguy  Rye is a marxist-fan who hasn't read basic works of Marx and can't believe he called for an authoritarian state. Marx is crystal clear about this, but it is not in his Manifesto nor Kapital. Marx lays down brutal state capitalist institutional design in his Critique of the Gotha Program and his politburo dictatorship design in his Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee.
    1
  47.  @ryebread3417  You present inaccurate critiques about material you have not taken the time to study, yourself. For example, you claim that Marx's theory does not propose a socialist political economy, however, that was the entire purpose of all of Marx's theory and his whole career. He presents details of his political economy in his Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, Critique of the Gotha Program and The Civil War in Paris. Your claim that Marx proposes his dictatorship in any same or similar way to the means whereby marxian petty bourgeois democracy does so is directly contradicted by Marx in part 4 of Critique of the Gotha Program. Marxian political economy proposes workplace democracy and strictly not political democracy. Marx details the politburo political dictatorship structure in The Civil War in France.
    1
  48.  @dominicgunderson  A classist dictatorship cannot present de facto democracy at the same time. It is dictatorship.
    1
  49. That's not what socialist means. Some economies are capitalist, like all of those tax/spend economies and then there's socialism - government engaged in collectivist economic engineering.
    1
  50.  @jamescrydeman540  That sounds like ahistorical nonsense. Socialism is a poorly developed philosophy advocating selection of some special class in society - collectivism - and thwarting an economy for its benefit, typically at the expense of outgroups which don't conform to the socialist class ideals of race or labor relation. It's written philosophy, and that's all that's been written by its advocates. Capitalism is the relegation of the state to the tax and spend reality that you describe and because capitalists also write down their philosophy, I could refer you to the capitalist who specifically advocated for the way all developed countries treat economy. Claims of any socialist with something to say about it are unsupported.
    1