Capitalism Today: Debt, Inequality, and Trade Wars (Marxist analysis of economy/my view on Communism)

– YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

I want to clarify that I am not a communist; I am a national socialist. I view the economy in a similar way to communists, analyzing it through Marx’s lens. However, the key difference lies in our broader philosophies. Communism is a global movement, and part of it advocates for the destruction of culture. I, on the other hand, see global movements as a threat. People are different, and they should have the right to choose the system and rights under which they wish to live. This is why I am not a communist.

I do not support a global government. However, I acknowledge the logic in the communist argument that as long as there are at least two states, one will inevitably oppress the other—a principle rooted in realpolitik and the Machiavellian view of power. My counterargument is that a single global state with no choice is an even greater threat because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Over time, such a government would also become corrupted.

Another key difference is that I am a traditionalist. I believe we should respect our culture and our past, while some communists advocate for the destruction of culture. Their argument is that cultural hierarchies perpetuate inequality, which sustains systems of oppression. I would argue, however, that cultural structures—such as the recognition of differences between men and women—serve a purpose. These structures can harness the strengths of both genders for the greater good.

Even the Church, which many view as corrupt, is not beyond redemption. Corruption in The Church is a product of human flaws, but the Church can be reformed. For some people, faith is essential and can bring about great good. Unlike communists, I do not wish to forget or destroy our culture; rather, I want to analyze it, understand it, and address its flaws without erasing its history or values.

I am trying to understand how this world, built on lies, operates—this “faith” in our systems, this “reality of naivety.” I know about manipulation through emotion and surveillance. But how can I fully explore what is happening when people can’t even accept surface-level lies because of their unwavering faith in the system?

Now After explaining I am not communist let’s get to Marxist analysis.

28:44

“What the West would like China to do is something entirely different. They would prefer a focus on internal consumption, essentially restructuring the economy to rely less on exports and more on domestic consumption. This would involve giving more money to workers in China so they can buy more products from Chinese industries and also from the West, thereby rebalancing China’s economy.

If China had a left-leaning reformist government, it might lean in that direction. However, the current government of China, despite being led by the Communist Party in name, is not a communist government in practice. Its primary aim is to protect the profits of large Chinese corporations and the wealth of the Chinese bureaucracy.

Their response is not to redistribute income from the richest to the poorest in Chinese society. Instead, like any other capitalist-oriented government, they prioritize expanding profits and attempting to export their way out of economic crises. The inequality and disproportionate distribution of wealth in China ultimately reflect a class issue. However, the strategy that China’s ruling class has pursued over the past two decades—relying on export-driven growth—has now reached its limits, and this is becoming increasingly obvious.

The most critical question is the ongoing struggle between the United States and China. It is now impossible for China to continue exporting its way out of a crisis. There is no opportunity to increase its market share in the U.S. or Europe. Existing markets have become saturated, and China is locked in a fierce competition with U.S. and European capitalists over these markets, with no room for further expansion.

Despite these challenges, China has not abandoned its export-driven approach, as it remains a central element of its current economic program. However, the rise of China also opens up the possibility of a new trade war as competition for global markets intensifies.”

11:14

“For a while, this system kept going. Throughout the ’90s and 2000s, it was sustained by expanding credit and capitalists reinvesting some of the surplus back into production. However, at a certain point, this approach becomes unsustainable. The contradictions grow too significant—on the one hand, the workers’ limited purchasing power, and on the other, the potential production capacity of the economy if factories were to operate at full capacity.

Hypothetically, capitalists could agree to give workers a pay raise. Indeed, some Keynesian economists have proposed this idea. For example, around a decade ago, I believe it was Joseph Stiglitz who argued that giving every worker a pay rise could help resolve the economic crisis. While this theory might seem logical on paper, the reality is different. No capitalist is likely to decide, “Yes, I need to raise my workers’ wages for the benefit of all capitalists worldwide.” That’s simply not how capitalists operate. They focus on making profits for their own companies. If managers fail to prioritize profit, shareholders will quickly replace them with those who will.

Capitalists do not make decisions based on the well-being of the entire system. They focus solely on the figures for their own companies. Decisions such as setting wages are made with the goal of maximizing profits for their specific enterprises. This individualistic approach is part and parcel of the capitalist system, which is fundamentally unplanned and anarchic. Each company operates in isolation, looking at its own needs rather than the system as a whole.”

5:45

“What we have in our society is a system called capitalism, whereby the wealth you create with your labor—be it physical or mental—is expropriated from you, and you are paid back only a portion of the wealth you create. That’s the only way I can make money off your labor: by paying you back less than the value you create, while covering the costs of various commodities of production.

There’s one commodity of production that’s unique—not the raw materials, not the fuel—but your labor, which is also treated as a commodity. Labor creates a value greater than itself. It doesn’t consume itself entirely; instead, it produces surplus value, giving the capitalist the opportunity to sell goods at a higher price than what they pay you. From this, the capitalist accumulates vast stores of wealth.

There’s only one reason you are hired to work for the capitalist: they can make money off your labor.

Let me give you a quote from an advertisement published in the Christian Science Monitor a few years ago:

“What will capital be doing on Labor Day? Building new plants, starting new businesses, funding innovation and growth, developing more energy to fuel the economy. Part of the capital that creates jobs comes from the earnings of American industry throughout the economy. Stronger earnings can provide the capital to create more and better jobs. So as we celebrate Labor Day, let’s not forget capital. It works too.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, I want to assert that this is a lie—an inversion of reality. Capital doesn’t work. Capital doesn’t produce anything; it is the product of labor. You could have all the capital in the world; you could be as rich as Nelson Rockefeller, but you couldn’t produce this building, this microphone, or this light bulb. Only human labor produces these things.

The message we receive is that capital creates, rather than being created. This is not to say that only physical labor creates wealth. Managers, planners, and others contribute to the process. But those individuals are not the capitalists. The capitalist is the person who makes profits without working. Profits are what you earn by not working.

People often ask me, “Aren’t you a capitalist? Look at the profits you make on your books.” No, I worked. I wrote my books. I sat there for 10 hours a day for over a year to write Democracy for the Few, putting in effort and even doing Canadian Air Force exercises to keep my body from falling apart. That was my labor. The copy editor who reviewed the manuscript worked. The printers, advertisers, and salespeople all contributed their labor to produce and sell the book.

The capitalist making profits off my book is someone like the former Prime Minister of England, Harold Macmillan, whose family owns St. Martin’s Press. Macmillan contributes no labor to the book but earns more per copy than I do. While an author might earn 7–15% of the book’s price, Macmillan takes 20–25% without doing any work. He uses the money gathered from the labor of others—authors, printers, editors—to accumulate wealth, achieve status, and influence laws to protect property.

I remember seeing Macmillan on The Dick Cavett Show, where Cavett asked him what he did after retiring as Prime Minister. Macmillan replied, “Well, the family has a little publishing house that does quite well, thank you.” I sat there thinking, This is the man profiting off the labor of countless others.

When they take your money—whether as a worker or a taxpayer—they are not just taking your money; they are taking your life. That paycheck represents your life, your energy, your brainpower. When taxes are taken to fund weapons, wars, or investments that protect the interests of the wealthy, they are stealing your life.

They accumulate millions, billions, and trillions, then use your taxes to safeguard investments in other countries, outsourcing jobs, and closing factories in places where workers have fought for fair wages. They exploit people elsewhere, like Korean farm girls, working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 18 cents an hour. This exploitation is the same story in El Salvador, Nicaragua, South Korea, and beyond. It’s not about making the world safe for democracy; it’s about making the world safe for hypocrisy.

If Ronald Reagan opposed Nicaragua for being “undemocratic,” why doesn’t he invade Chile or South Africa? Instead, he supported these countries and other undemocratic regimes. This shows the real agenda is about maintaining power and wealth for the ruling class.

The ruling class, which owns the land, labor, technology, science, and natural resources of our country, never presents itself as naked wealth and power. Instead, it cloaks itself with patriotism and morality, wrapping itself in the flag. It works to control not just the material world but also the symbolic environment, shaping public perception through its control of the U.S. news media.

The media, while claiming to be free and independent, are owned by the same giant corporations that dominate other industries. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and these corporations use their ownership of the media to perpetuate their narrative, ensuring the continuation of a system that serves their interests.”