General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Ryan Chapman
comments

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

Previous
2
Next
...
All

@ryebread3417 A marxist is an ignoramus concerning the work of Marx, mainly from having read a minimal amount of his work. For example, most marxists claim that Marx did not propose how his communist society would be or that Lenin and Stalin did something differently than this proposal of Marx's. Most claim that Marx's career was some intellectual critique of capitalism - challenging the orthodox economics world view in any way - and not demagogy of economics to incite revolts - challenging the illiterate german worker's world view.
1
It's actually a mistake to read the emotions of society to project causality on to political economic philosophies which were developed before this emotion set in. For example, 3rd Reich gained fervent support of Germans through their policies and extremes of power. Germans went nuts in support, although they barely got the nazis in office in a political contest. The German nutters were not causal to 3rd Reich and their transgressions, the national socialist political economy justified the nuttiness and persecution and racism and gassed these up as a state. It's the technical analysis of political economy which answers what fascism is. This emotional analysis clearly failed with the conflation of national socialism with fascism.
1
@dominicgunderson Seems pretty spot on, actually. Marxists are generally folks with poor reading of Karl Marx's works and typically respond to better informed people by pointing out that they are not inline with their favorite source of marxist propaganda - youtube videos and charlatans like Noam Chomsky and Richard Wolff. What Marxists cannot do is quote Karl Marx to the effect they have been led to embrace. It's easy to quote Marx's unequivocal call for brutal, totalitarian dictatorship, just by picking from his war with social democrats and liberal democracy altogether.
1
Any club sharing nationalist emotion like how fascism is described here is harmless, especially in 2023. That did not cause fascism or national socialism - that is not what fascism refers to - and of course, the analysis of political economy through emotions is incompetent. I don't know why someone would go out of their way to do that. Anyhow, we have to fear state regulation of enterprise and labor in order to stave off fascism and national socialism and the emotions that concern folks will be abated commensurately. Fascism will be implemented by populist politicians like Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama who proposed deceptive policies for public services. They focused on US healthcare - the largest sector of economy on the planet. Specifically the mandate of from the state for private consumption of health insurance is a fascist dictate introduced in US politics. (deception: universal healthcare is everyone being forced to buy services from private companies which lobbied the government) That is fascist political economy, it's not emotion about United States or about white-guy blood. Sanders's M4A is a state mandated ban on private pay for healthcare and that is socialist policy. That will bring about the emotions of 3rd Reich and of USSR, not the other way around. Policy and philosophy of state and the great and powerful force of government is where fascist excess produced the emotions recorded by millennial scholars.
1
@tr1bes That's not what happens when people don't pay their hospital bills, nor does fairness in healthcare have anything to do with government-mandated private health insurance, genius. How gullible are you people? You are also mistaken about what fascism was. Fascism was in Mussolini's Italy and not in 3rd Riech Germany. This is where you history flunkies get in trouble with this conflation of fascism and national socialism. You are not capable of recognizing policy which came directly from these systems, just like intended by fascists. For example, AHA is a fascist idea and you need to be made into a history flunky like you are so that you would think the opposite from historical reality about this type of policy. The state mandating private citizens to buy a product from private businesses like health insurance companies because of the financial relationship between government and these big business sectors (like US healthcare, which is the largest sector of any economy in all human history). That is fascism - corporative state, it is called - like Italy from the early 20s to the early 40s, New Deal/Progressive United States and like Weimar Republic and not like 3rd Reich. All forced guild/union membership into privately-owned unions which had government's attention because they paid cash for it. 3rd Reich was anti-corporative and mandated the state's role and not private companies in any nationally essential matter like labor relations or healthcare. (See Medicare for All of Progressive Sanders). That's your nazi shit. It is socialist political economy within the health sector - banning private exchange like the nazi's policy of July, 1933 - First Law for the Implementation You are wrong about US conservatism versus US Progressivism visa vis fascism and national socialism. It is the state's presentation of propaganda which is fascist and national socialist and not the state's regulation that no propaganda be issued through the state. The position of FL Board of Ed is that normative propaganda about race and sexuality are not permissible in public schools. United States Bill of Rights separates religion from the state for this reason. Prior to United States, governments would each own a religion and use the propaganda power from this to control society. Whereas normative propaganda about race and sex are not religion, these are religious and faith-based ideas and not science and history based ideas. The conflict of these faith based opinions about gender or about race conspiracy are not acceptable in public institutions, especially those mandated for education. For example, conflating gay history and black history as attempted here is not historical and is a political propaganda attack through the state on the black population in the state. The reality of Black history is the leadership of black "religious homophobes" and "anti-Progressive" conservatives and never intersectional gay agenda like the banned excuse for black studies attempted here. You must think places other than United States have Bill of Rights. Bill of rights prevents national socialist policy in the US, after a long saga of legal battle and civil warfare with American Progressive fascists and national socialist Democrats. For example, fascism was banned in the US by conservatives on the US Supreme Court (Schecter vs state) and again with Brown vs Board of Education, the last time Progressive's education ideas for blacks in the south was suspect. Conservatives on the supreme court banned Obama's fascist private healthcare mandate and Biden's fascist private vaccine mandate.
1
@__D10S__ If marxists actually read what Marx proposed, there wouldn't be so many.
1
We disagree that capitalism survives from Smith's theory of invisible hand, rather than moral superiority. Capitalism is morally superior on the basis of human rights. Capitalism requires government to guarantee assembly, expression, contract and property rights. 1) socialism is the abrogation of these human rights for them to be used collectively - centrally. 2) No socialist has ever explored the implications of collectivism on human rights. 3) So no socialist has confronted what injustice human rights presents. 4) if basic human rights are respected by the state, there is automatically a capitalist political economy. If basic human rights are guaranteed, socialism is outlawed.
1
@philosteward Socialist theory - no exceptions - is collectivist. This is directly opposite of human rights which are individualist philosophical concepts. The success or failure of capitalist economies is down to factors of those economies moreso than human rights. Capitalism is the basis of economics on human rights, not the efficiencies of doing so which vary within the theory.
1
@philosteward It only depends on whether a conventional human rights regime is a moral standard. If it is, all collectivist theory, not just Marx's, fails to understand or ever seriously address human rights. Socialism battled Enlightenment individualism like human rights by proposing the alternative of classist or racist collectivism. Since socialists don't actively develop theory, we are left with bigoted and antique notions which still get attention from poorly educated and envious. The socialist claims of capitalist immorality are often unethical - based on classist determinism, name calling and semantic fallacy. In most cases, they demagogue what happens when human rights are guaranteed to a populace. Read Marx on free countries in part 4 of his Critique of the Gotha Program. That's the wrong side of history all socialist theory wallows in. Check out the Soviet Referendum (1991). Note it banned socialism by extending human rights. Note the overwhelming popular support and the marxist counter-reaction, then the reaction of the soviet populace(s), subsequently to that. Case in point of human rights ending socialism and capitalism only offering Russians freedoms, not all this wealth. That has to come from factors in the Russian economy which invite foreign direct investment.
1
Middle class is less due to poor immigrants being welcomed in different proportions than before. Measuring middle class is not economic/scientific, but rather just leftist populist demagogy of the fact there's a median performance in economies.
1
Marx is totalitarian because he called for the state to control the means of production as an institution instead of allowing people to do so autonomously. This is the transfer of human rights to government.
1
RealQuarlie Government is opposite the people in any political science analysis. You present nonsense. Communists don't get their own standard of human rights, they just abrogate the standards of human rights which existed well before there was communist theory in the first place.
1
RealQuarlie The collective operates through the government. Communist government is the dictatorship of the proles entailed in the politburo government of all marxist tradition states. In order that the government can insist on workplace democracy and other socialism, it cannot use liberal democratic political institution design. Marx debuted his politburo or central committee of the proles approach in his "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League", years before later referring to it as dictatorship of the proles.
1
That is the most important lesson United States has to teach you idiots. No other system than the maximums of capitalism applied in US history has been as successful at what matters for working people. No other system features higher household disposable income on median average than United States - highest wages in the worls. No other nation provides more free healthcare or free education and few come close. Few have a home ownership rate in the vicinity of United States and note exceed it, certainly none which also boast the best real property and equity investment markets of all time.
1
@SuperGirl-tf2wn Colonialism is a mercantilist political economy like Marx's communist socialism is. Capitalism is an offspring from this whereas socialism is the brother which takes the same approach as feudal or mercantilist production with a different class in the autocratic ruling position.
1
@SuperGirl-tf2wn They're already different words. It's more important to recognize that all socialism is dusty old mercantilism so nobody gets it twisted that capitalism is backwards political economy like that.
1
@SuperGirl-tf2wn They're already 2 different words and they are already opposites. The devil is in the details which had you confuse colonialism and capitalism.
1
 @cooleren3124 It's nonsense scapegoating of soviet personnel for the exceptionally low quality and depth of philosophy Marx drummed up.
1
At some point you demagogues have got to stfu and gtfo. Since socialism has slaved and starved workers and has no reason to do better than capitalism, can't you let it go? Capitalist nations are the ones with the best and most desired workplaces with the highest compensation. United States is most capitalist of all and features the most regulated and enforced workplace on earth, the highest pay by purchasing power (OECD Median Disposable Household Income), the most desirable companies to work for on all earth and likely all history, the most free healthcare and free higher education with the highest standard of doctors on earth and highest ranked hospitals on the planet, the largest welfare program on earth which all social democracies are moving to emulate... can't you recognize the best as better than the worst (socialism for workers in history)?
1
@kitsune630 No, guy. This is common for marxists to say because marxists have not read enough Karl Marx to see how stupid his ideas were. Marx invented state capitalism (in his 'Critique of the Gotha Program'). State capitalism is "socialism" and "early stage of communist society" according to Marx in part 1 of that work. Marx invented soviet politburo dictatorship (in his 'Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee'.) Lenin was no inventor, but a dogmatic marxist. In Russia, Lenin was playing the role Marx assigned to himself in Commie League - permanent advisor to the central committee of the soviet. You may reference Lenin's justification on the minutia of state capitalism on a strict basis of Marx's ideology (his words) by reading Lenin's 'State and Revolution'.
1
@kitsune630 You could not have read the one place where Marx describes this in his own words and that is the problem. Breaking up marxian from each/to each as separated proposals and being incredulous about Marx's clear description of "socialism" and "early stage" communism as being specifically capitalistic gives this fact away. Read from Marx before making ignorant claims about his philosophy. Even though Marx is crystal clear in his writing, marxist have chosen to misrepresent unpopular ideation of marx rather than confronting it. The result is if you take a marxist charlatan's word for what Marx said - a guy like Richard Wolff, for example - you will be wrong and ignorant about what Marx advocated. Critique of the Gotha Program part 1 is what you have obviously never read. Read it. It is short. Tell me how I'm wrong or misinterpreting Marx or Marx's clarity on the ordination of state capitalism.
1
Maybe "populism" is conflated with fascism here. 3rd Reich, fascist Italy and communist Russia were populist movements. Each of these was a distinct political economic design and philosophical tradition and fascism was the name of the Italian one and not this populist commonality. Despite the hope that inclusion of Germany in this doc shouldn't taint the premise, it certainly does. To find common ground between two different philosophies with different philosophical traditions, the technical definition of fascism is not delivered by the 'what is fascism?' video. The modern scholarship on this topic tend to resort to this emotions-of-fascism analysis and it omits a great deal of history through misnomer and generalization.
1
Dialectic or historical materialism is nonsense. Marx was mistaken that dialectic is any natural social process. Dialectic (Hegel) is a contrived intellectual process, presuming opposites and using methods which can't come about from plural decesis. This "theory" was cheap argumentation for non-thinkers to believe his communism was some needed step beyond capitalism. In real political science, after mercantilism is deprecated - for example, by capitalism - there's no sustainable return to the authoritarian, unilateral nature of mercantilism and socialism is no exception.
1
@kohdicraig5179 Dunce, marxist-leninist systems executed people on a basis of non-communist ideology. Marxist leninism is authoritarian by design. It is the execution of Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat. We can know that Marx meant dictatorship like the common modern usage because he detailed the political institution (politburo) which would need to replace liberal democracy and it is a political dictatorship with no control of policy left to the populace.
1
Capitalism works for people additionally to funding all government and social democracy - being the only possible route to broad social welfare - capitalist market-based currency valuation (Keynes).
1
@notarealAlbanian You are mistaken. Marxist communism is not a stateless proposal. Marxist communism is a state capitalist proposal and proposed centralized dictatorship with no elected state officials. Marx raises utopian - impossible - standards for the marxist state to give up its brutal dictatorship. Literally his totalitarian ideation was supposed to be brutal enough to change human nature to working as our #1 desire, then Marx claimed the state may go away. Marxian state capitalism and anything to do with late stage communist utopia are both delivered in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program part 1.
1
@bobbiemiles-foremaniii8747 It's like a teddy bear versus a grizzly bear - interpreted marx from a charlatan like Richard Wolff versus Marx making crystal clear normatives for totalitarian dictatorship by his central committee.
1
Karl Marx proposed that everyone is paid in work vouchers based on hours worked and goods will be priced in average hours required to produce each unit (Socially Neccesary Labor Time).
1
@monk_cs2 Be honest. You got an F on economics paper.
1
100% of Marx's conjectures were debunked before he debuted them. For example, marxian TRPF crisis was debunked by ricardian business cycle before Marx graduated. 100%
1
To be fair, If you refer to Engels' "Working Conditions", the book does describe this upgrade. Marx comments on peasantry and their poverty in Kapital vol 1.
1
@chris.bcfc.keeprighton.5685 Speeking of low IQ, when does you and Marx's stupid prediction expire? Is it still based on deliberately bollocks analysis like Marx's "Capitalist [sic] Accumulation" of Kapital 3? Still based on debunked 18th century economic philosophy (eg LTRPF taken from Smith, debunked by Ricardo (business cycle)?
1
I suggest these young marxists are not pursuing education concerning the topics which Marx's ideas covered. For example, you either study sociology, economics or political science, industrial psychology, human resource management or business administration or you take the ignorant pseudointellectual approach of running with the bigotry some innumerate sophist in Marx had put out 2+ bygone eras ago.
1
@dino9921 Marx is considered unethical heterodox economics and is not lauded by anyone outside of pseudointellectual sycophants of his nonsense claims.
1
@dino9921 This is not opinion. Marx is considered unethical and heterodox in social sciences, political science and economics. Clearly you are poorly informed about Marx's philosophy to even believe that what he wrote about would be taken seriously in any academia. Why would it be? For example, what contribution has Marx made to economics? His contemporary and countryman, Carl Menger was real economist and not a revolutionary populist demagogue. Menger is lauded by economics for his contribution of marginal utility among other analytical methods. What, specifically, has Marx contributed to economics, whatsoever, if you are not just gaslighting about a populist bigot with selfish authoritarian ambitions he wrote down for us to remember him by?
1
@kamoshi Not one of them supports modern economic theory. It is not possible due to Marx solely presenting populist demagogy in all 3 volumes of that work. Obviously you have not read any Kapital. That's no economic thesis.
1
@kamoshi Kapital is only valuable for understanding what Marx claimed and not any other purpose or even close. It's nonsesnse and was nonsense at the time of its publication. It's normative and full of fallacy. It's deliberately bad philosophy delivered poorly. For example, economics is what requires analysis, not capital nor capitalism. Those pseudointellectual pursuits are a fool's errand of populist demagogy of fundamental economic human rights like free expression, free assembly, private property and free contract. The criticism is of freedom expressed by private citizens. The complaint from Marx, some 3rd party to a labor relations, making it irrelevant and unethical. We can work together however we feel like. Marx discusses his unethical disdain for state guaranteed freedom in part 4 of his Critique of the Gotha Program. Critique of the Gotha Program is more valuable reading all 3 volumes of Kapital, combined... As far as understanding Marx's goals. I just read Kapital to say I did. If you are interested in the topic of economics, I suggest "Foundations of Economic Analysis" by the great Paul Samuelson. Compare that to Marx's antique and deliberately incorrect bollocks.
1
Contradiction hunting is poor quality of philosophy and one of the reasons why marxist philosophy is only indulged in by marxists and never used in sincere analysis of any topic. For example, the approach to these same matters of contradictions and critique in conventional economics is the recognition and redress of externalities (Pigou). Rather than the marxist approach which ignorantly assumes systems are or have been swapped out in a quest for fewer contradictions, or worst yet, that these have materialized as a result of broad economic experience (historical materialism), the economic scholars of the time had not recognized any dialectic of economic systems for 20 some years. In that 20 years passed before Marx's graduation, socialism was buried by capitalism on the same grounds of competency and human rights as present day (Ricardo vs Malthus). In that same time, the philosophical approach and certainly Marx's sophist approach were completely deprecated from economics because these methods are estranged from reality, rather than informed and constrained by reality (science).
1
This is by Karl Marx's reckoning. In reality, socialism is an outdated and unethical concept which capitalism has eliminated in the womb in most cases. It is not suitable for post capitalism since capitalism is more superiorly armed and significantly more studied on effective economics.
1
Marx used ideas which were already debunked a few decades prior to him using them. He wasn't trying to compete with the cutting edge of economics at the time and if you read his more technical works, you can tell he struggled with the math economists were using in his era. For example, Ricardo debunked his own LTV and Smith's TRPF was regarded as cyclical after Ricardian business cycle was debuted in the 1820s. Carl Menger introduced the prevailing understanding of value in lieu of archaic cost basis altogether. He had the ears of the German government, John Stuart Mill was influencing England and Leon Walras was influencing France. Marx did not and could not dream of prevailing his economic parody over real economists like these. They were trying to understand economics and Marx was not. Marx was hoping to get people angry enough to revolt and not understand economics. The #1 theory we are thankful for are the economic human rights that Marx was so opposed to. These men beat out Marx's idea of totalitarianism with a central government of fools with poor mathematic skills. This is what happened in Russia and China and killed millions of soviets and chinese out of incompetence.
1
Capitalism is about tax and spend and socialism is about everyone being a worker or Chinese or German, etc. Socialism is for authoritarians to posit a red herring to deflect from their goals of controlling everyone in society.
1
1) These classes are unethical and illusory determinist conjectures. 2) The conjecture that social position is gained or lost as a group is irrelevant demagogy aimed at instigating civil unrest in Germany as Marx's works were all dedicated to. 3) This proposal is debunked. Relatively to the mid 19th century, German median wage earners are more enfranchised economically and politically in 2024. 4) In addition to Germany, 100% of nations subscribing to capitalism have experienced broadening economic and political enfranchisement in every generation relatively to the prior in the 170 years since this claim.
1
The idea that the mechanics of capitalism is subjugating workers rather than improving their livelihoods is debunked by such stats. At the same time, Marxist ideas are debunked as means whereby working people could see improvement in their conditions.
1
Everyone can define socialism because it is an economics term with established history. Socialists refuse to define their philosophy because it is unethical and inept economics which requires brutal authoritarianism. Better to keep the reality hidden.
1
@j_kobx The resolution of the German and western European dialectic between capitalism and socialism in favor of capitalism ended widespread poverty on earth (60% in 1950, 8.5% now) and 1400 years of total war there. The fact that most men born this century are alive and have all their limbs is night and day from when old mercantilist concepts like socialism dominated.
1
@j_kobx Obviously everything is more regulated now than the 1950s. Use facts rather than these fantasy positions. Try real economics, political science and history instead of being a demagogue like all of the socialist philosophers. At some point enough is enough with ignorant bigots opining on the economies we have to live with. If your position requires extreme hyperbole like your claims of monarchy and oligarchy, then it is not a valid position (argumentum ad absurdem). Don't propose bullshit to criticize something you can't criticize academically.
1
@j_kobx That is silly. Do you know what a monarchy is in the first place? It is hard to take socialists seriously since you lot can't give credit where it is due and you use terms incorrectly/absurdly.
1
@j_kobx It was American capitalism which achieved the defeat of socialism last century. That United States was not as highly regulated as the present day. The opposite idea is misinformation about economic history. Capitalism and not high regulation was responsible for those changes to world peace and prosperity. Capitalism is regulation on government that specifically government/state/collective institutions have to reserve human rights to the public as individuals. This created prosperity which government allocation of the ecomomy could not possibly. This created peace because corporations are not war mongers like countries are and that's been proven.
1
The problem is the "amorphous" approach to education on marxism, national socialism and fascism. These were severally well defined ideologies with policies which could be predicted based on the philosophical basis of the movements. Amorphous political economy is our zeitgeist of federated social democratic capitalism and not any of these contrived, centrally administered and idealistic approaches to political economy.
1
@dirkcampbell5847 Read Marx directly rather than trusting instructors about Marx. Most of these people misinform about Marx and the value of his works with relation to how economies actually work or in relation to the field which studies economies (eg Richard Wolff). Marxist economics was debunked prior to Marx's presentation of these ideas. He re-proposed ideas and understanding which was in disuse in economics since the 1830s and presented them to working class and never an academic economist. Marx's economics was parody of economists and the idea that economies have nature of themselves. Reading Marx deliver it makes this clear, calling out "the marginalists" and others who understood the topic beyond the accessibility of Marx's poor algebra. One may try to take on Kapital in order to read hundreds of pages of Marx's debunked tautology. Vol 3 is the most technical. One may also read the shortcuts: Kapital was compiled from Value Price and Profit, Wage Labor and Capital and Grundrisse. The shortcuts to marxist political economy (not broached in the kapitals) are Manifesto, Critique of the Gotha Program and Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee. Marx calls for a brutal, statist, authoritarian and totalitarian political economy in no uncertain nor contradictory terms and the top Marxist scholars lack the basic literacy to comprehend this. They all contend Marx had some twinkle in his eye for notions of democracy or self-government of workers and this is not supported by any work of Marx's career. By the time you get through the works above, any claims that Marx is unclear, contradictory or hard to understand will be permanently debunked. It would help to know proven economic concepts before reading Marx's compilation of purely disproven ones, but if you read Marx thoroughly, the hazard of being mislead by a guy with less insight to work and economics and poorer algebra than the average modern high schooler is minimal.
1

Previous
2
Next
...
All