Good video dunking on surplus labor value

[DeepEcoCel]

Also based Touhou enjoyer

 

[DeepEcoCel]

I also watched his video on antinatalism, where I discovered the dustiest of brimstones:

Imagine being an antinatalist vegan Just kill yourself already

 

[faded]

oyyyyyyyyyy vey

 

[panchito88]

ITS DA CORPORATIONS but they are NOT controlled by kikes

 

[metamedia=project17]

Jewshock Infinite

 

[faded]

Also based Touhou enjoyer

 

[Karenin]

Also based Touhou enjoyer

go savesubs.com, link video and copypasta the subtitles here nigga in case it gets baleeted or the channel wiped cuz the jewtuber said something a kike doesn't like

---

hey internets here's an interesting question you may have heard about the concept of Class Warfare, or the idea that there exists different classes of people;
that those in one class exploit and take advantage of the other;
and that the history of humanity is a history of this constant struggle between the class of honest people and those who are in an exploitative class whose incentives lie in trying to control the others, often with varying forms of coercion.

This type of thinking is generally attributed to Karl Marx and his theories of class conflict and exploitation.
The question is this: What if Marx was actually correct about both of these things but fundamentally wrong on just what specifically classes are, and how the process of economic exploitation really operates?
Let's now do a quick dive into Marx's theory of class conflict and identify what is wrong with it.
Marx saw a class based on a person's relationship to the means of production. In other words whether or not they own the stuff that is used to make more stuff. This is an oversimplification but it's close enough, with said owners being referred to as the bourgeoisie class and those who own land as landowners and those who only have their labor being the proletariat.
 To simplify this imagine a cereal making factory which produces delicious but terrible for you sugary cerno flakes owned by Marissa and a bunch of plebbiters.
As members of the proletariat the plebs here only have their own labor to sustain themselves and thus they must sell that labor to Marissa while working in her Factory. The plebs produce 500 worth of cerno flakes each day but Marisa only pays them 200 for their full day of labor. After another 200 costs of production are accounted for Marissa is pocketing the remaining of 100 as profit.
According to Marx this one hundred dollars should rightfully belong to the workers and not Marisa as it is value extraction of the product of their labor which they refer to as Surplus Labor Value. In simpler terms Marx argues that the difference between the value of what the proletariat laborer made and how much the Bourgeois owner pays them is theft. This is the basis of Marx's Exploitation Theory. Communists will also argue that since in a capitalist society the workers are not allowed to simply take back this Surplus, the relationship between them and the owner is a course inherent combative one since the owner wants to maximize profit by paying the workers less while the workers always want to make more.
This difference in interest creates a class conflict.
Alll of  this is an oversimplification but if you have read any leftist Theory or watched any common videos on the subject you'll quickly find out that this is pretty much how it goes.

So then what are the flaws of Marx's Theory?
Well the answer to that can be found by asking yourselves this simple question: Just where do the means of production come from?
Anyways let's say one of these plebs, let's just call him Bob, besides that they are going to stop whining and actually do something about their situation so he decides to stop buying pumpkin spice lattes from Star Cuts every day with the other plebs as well as other Cuts until he is saving about 25 percent of his wages which after about five years he is then able to open his own business which produces pumpkin soy. I mean what else did you expect?
Anyways in terms of Marx's Theory Bob is now the owner of a means of production. Let's break down the requirements of what he did to achieve this.
Well first off is the difference in time preferences, is the other plebs would rather enjoy the instant gratification of lattes every day rather than investing their money in future endeavors. And to some degree this makes sense because tomorrow is uncertain when given the choice of being given one grand a day or being given one grand a year from now just about every sane person will choose to be given that one grand now this is because time itself is limited and thus has value, which is why in reality safe Investments generally will pay you more for waiting which explains why things like capital investments or certificates of a deposit and various forms of investing exist and why people will pay you for your time.
In this way there is also the simple fact that Bob is taking a risk with his product: what if no one wants to buy his product? Bob has to hire some plebs of hiis own to help produce in his Factory and while they are getting paid regardless of whether or not the pumpkin soy sells Bob really only makes money if consumers decide his product is worth their money to part with it.
This is where we start to see the real relationship between owner and worker. The so-called labor Surplus can just as easily be seen as the worker paying the owner for their time and risk investment, it is in fact a mutually beneficial and voluntary transaction where time and risk are being traded for steady guaranteed immediate wages.
Therefore Marx's theory of class and exploitation doesn't make any sense because it fails to account for this value of time and it also fails to properly understand how time can be traded. The absence of this critical component of Economics in Marx's theories completely ruins the basis of his thought process hence why he reaches such absurd conclusions in his class and Exploitation Theory.
This also shows an additional flaw with the Labor Theory of Value and its inferiority to the Subjective Theory of Value, which Marxist often defend with a circular argument where their interpretation of empirical data is assumed to be correct in order to prove that it's correct, which is of course invalid reasoning which I have already covered in my previous video on Master plus Labor Value.
This also shows why there's no coercion as it is entirely the pleb's choice whether they want to trade their labor and enjoy instant gratification with the money they get from working at Maris's factory or if they wish to tread the same path as Bob with a lower time preference. Their claims of coercion are based on the fact that in a capitalist society people are allowed to defend their private property meaning their claims are nothing more than a dishonest leap of linguistic gymnastics.
Commies think that they should be allowed to steal other people's property and if simply reworded this belief to make it sound like they are the victims the reality is no one is stopping those in the proletariat from exchanging their time preference to risk starting their own business, or is there?

Let's turn this upside down and show why Marx is actually correct about the existence of class coercion and exploitation in this world, he was only wrong about the specific details.
If you have actually looked into what it takes to start a business you may have noticed that it's not very easy. Allow me to introduce you to an alternative theory of class and exploitation. So ask yourself this what does a robber have in common with a corrupt politician? The answer is that they both steal for a living using the threat of violent aggressive coercion as opposed to actually producing a good or service that consumers would want to voluntarily purchase. Neither of them are producing anything of True Value thus they are both non-productive. In other words there is a non-productive political class which uses aggression to get what they want, at odds with a productive class which most of us belong to. Where we operate under the rules of producing a good or provide that which other people actually want for, the robber (this is obvious) he comes up to people sticks a gun in their face demands money and then tries to live off this cycle of non-production at least until he gets caught, but for the corrupt politician things get more complicated because he can make his actions of theft legal at least in the eyes of the law he rules over.
Your money is stolen from you indirectly via inflation due to bad monetary policy and directly via taxation, you have no say in this manner if you do not pay your taxes or live under these laws men with guns who work under the corrupt politicians will come after you, if you resist they will use violence against you so this guy is therefore just as much of an aggressive thug as the robber is. The reality of his thievery has just been obfuscated with extra steps.
And how does he spend your money? Well that's where the real exploitation comes in, he spends billions sometimes even trillions of your money benefiting his political allies, often creating subsidies and spending packages specifically designed to cater to them while further using his power of coercion harming his political opponents and or the competitors of his allies.
Whether or not regular people actually
want money to be spent in his desires is irrelevant as that is the nature of the non-productive class it gets to ignore any voluntary market forces and simply use aggression to steal and reallocate resources instead of peaceful operation and trade that the productive class must play by.
A quick look through human history shows that this definition of class conflict is a much better fit than what Marx came up with. Just about every war that has been fought can be described as those with political power attempting to use aggression to force others to provide them with resources and internal Market struggles within a country can also be understood by this conflict between the peaceful and voluntary versus the aggressors who just take what they want.

But to really understand this let's go back to Marisa in her Factory.
Let's now say that Marissa has a bigger competitor, Mr Heckle who produces an inferior product to cerno flakes but in larger quantities but this is no concern to him because unlike Marisa Mr Heckle has correctly identified the corrupt politicians as being a member of the non-productive class and he has no problem getting in on the action so he offers said politician a large sum of money as a campaign donation, wink wink nudge nudge, while asking for regulation to be passed that bans some of the crucial ingredients present in cerno flakes. The result is that Marissa is forced to shut down and now the previous laborers in her Factory must work for Mr Heckle instead who then exploits the artificially reduced competition in the market to cut their wages from 200 a day that they were making under Marissa to 100 a day. It is this reduction of wages as a result of complex backroom deals involving the non-productive class that is the true mechanism by which laborers wages are being stolen from them.
Ordinarily those with skills in working
a cereal production factory would have multiple businesses to choose from to take on an employment contract and the value of their labor would be based on the forces of supply and demand just like everything else in the market. These factories which offer better pay and better benefits packages would be able to demand higher skilled workers but now that Mr Heckel has partnered with the non-productive political class to bully his competition away he has granted an unnatural Monopoly.
The free market forces are no longer protecting the workers wages from being arbitrarily reduced, to make things even worse these unnecessary and aggressive regulations also make it harder in some cases legally impossible for Bob to build his own business Bob now must trade significantly higher amounts of his time and effort and it comes with significantly more risk since there is a chance that a politician could just shut down his newly built business for nonsensical made-up reasons at any time.

And don't count on the mainstream media to tell the people the truth about what's going on they too are in bed with the non-productive class and regularly benefit from their subsidies, they are in on the scam and thus work with the regime to keep people misinformed via propaganda.
And so to wrap this up I can finally talk about what this image right here really means it is not just the identity politics culture war that the left is distracted by but also an absurd and painfully misguided theory of class and exploitation which distracts them from the true class conflict.
Adding to their confusion and lack of understanding furthering their status as the man who agrees with the establishment who thinks he is part of the resistance Meme, and you can see this in a lot of Redtube content, for all their talk of muh libertarian socialism and being against muh hierarchies, they're very quick to justify voting for higher taxation and voting for greater power to the political non-productive class.
The result is that the regime remains in power and continues to exploit them just like they have always done.

Anyways that's all for now thanks for watching if you enjoyed the video feel free to like subscribe tip or leave a comment or whatever for the algorithm till next time

 

[Karenin]

Also based Touhou enjoyer

This video explains why taxing the rich is a scam.
tldr: goobermint pays for everything using loans from a (((central bank))) not tax revenue. He's a librul so the solution he proposes in the vid is just the old-school Marxist argument for nationalising key industries and legally limiting how much real estate anyone can own (which would require confiscating most properties landlords own and the McMansions of the extremely wealthy.)

---

Over the past decade the notion of taxing the rich has become a very popular policy narrative championed by progressive center-left politicians.
Taxing the wealthy has understandably become quite popular as inequality continues to get drastically worse in most capitalist countries while the wages of the majority have been stagnant.

It's getting so bad that inequality levels are reaching Gilded age levels and some even argue ancient egypt levels.
Progressive politicians such as bernie sanders and alexandria ocasio-cortez have played an especially big role in giving this idea even more momentum in recent years.
The idea that many social democrats have is to introduce wealth taxes targeted directly at billionaires and multi-millionaires such as higher capital gains taxes real estate inheritance taxes closing tax loopholes and to crack down on billionaires hiding money in offshore tax havens as well as a top 70 marginal income tax on all income made after 10 million dollars.
However it is no secret that it is quite hard to actually enforce such taxes.
Many billionaires with more power and influence will always be able to find ways of storing money in offshore accounts and taking advantage of different tax laws around the world.
This is why economists such as thomas piketty have advocated for large wealth taxes that are globally enforced by global institutions which he argues for in his book capital in the 21st century.
An overly long book that will probably bore you to death seriously just watch his netflix documentary here.

I'll argue that there are three big problems with the notion of taxing the rich both as an argument and as a policy solution number.
#1 higher taxes on the rich or anyone else are not needed to pay for progressive policies such as a green new deal, medicare for all, federal job guarantee or basic income.
#2 believing the false assumptiont hat higher taxes are needed to pay for these policies makes it very easy for conservatives to argue against them and block them in government. It heavily convolutes the argument for progressive policies by creating a false sense of dependence on the rich.
#3 taxing the rich is not a sufficient solution for addressing inequality
while taxation can mitigate the symptoms of inequality it does not address the root cause of inequality which we'll get to towards the end of the video. Not only does taxation not address the root causes of inequality but it also does not change the fundamental dictatorial
undemocratic structure of capitalist workplaces which are alienating dehumanizing and restrict human freedom.

Now before getting into the video if you enjoy this content and consider yourself a fan of the channel supporting it on patreon would be a huge step in order to keep this going the algorithm does not promote this type of content so if you want to help keep this going then pledging a few dollars on patreon to support independent media instead of corporate giants like netflix would be a huge help and if you enjoy this content be sure to check out my second channel one dime radio.

Now back to the video. While advocating for more taxation to mitigate wealth disparities is one thing which economists such as thomas piketty argue for, politicians who use taxing the rich as a talking point for how they will pay for their policies is a completely different point, one with a lot of problems even though it is an insufficient solution.
Taxing the rich i can get behind for moral reason, however the bigger problem with tax the rich discourse is when progressives naively suggest this policy as a way to fund their policies whether it be medicare for all a green new deal, a federal jobs guarantee, a universal basic income or even something as rudimentary as building good infrastructure.
Isn't it funny how nobody asks how China spends trillions of dollars every year on infrastructure without raising taxes? Progressive politicians who reinforce the myth that we need the money of the rich to pay for these things are just as part of the problem when it comes to economic illiteracy as a pro-austerity deficit donkeys are, and this is because we don't actually need the money of billionaires to pay for these policies.
If you watched my previous video on the deficit myth then you would know that taxes do not actually pay for government spending at the federal level, taxpayer money is not what pays for the trillion dollar wars, military spending stimulus packages or really anything that the federal government does, even though it is quite easy to bust the myth once you look a little deep into it.
The vast majority of people still think that the government funds their policies via taxation or borrowing money from the rich through government bonds and this is false. To avoid repeating myself i highly recommend watching my deficit myth video if you haven't already and if you are still not convinced check the sources in the description as well as these two books on the screen which are short reads and illustrate the exact technicals of government spending.

Contrary to popular belief the government spends first and taxes second.
The federal taxes are not there to finance federal spending but rather their purpose is to generate demand for the currency, get people working for the currency and to control the money supply.
Federal taxes are not there to generate money for the government, taxes are there to generate demand for the government's money.
Taxation is the primary mechanism that gives value to a state fiat currency Taxation is how you turn litter and digital blips into money.
When the government chooses to issue debt in the form of bonds after spending more money into the economy than it deletes out of it.
It does so in order to guarantee people risk-free assets that they can store their money in and collect interest on in other words the federal government can always make any and all payments in its own currency.
Federal government spending is in no case operationally constrained by revenues your federal taxes don't actually fund anything they get deleted.
The federal government both spends money into the economy and deletes money out of the economy via keystrokes at the central bank.

Let's take a closer look by seeing what exactly happens if you pay
your taxes by writing a check: when the federal government gets your check and it's deposited and clears all they do is change the number in your checking account downward as they subtract the amount of your check from your bank balance. See the government didn't actually get anything back to distribute to someone else or to fund anything, no gold coin dropped into the bucket at the fed, they just changed the numbers in the bank accounts, nothing went anywhere.
And what happens if you were to theoretically go over to your local irs office to pay your taxes with actual cash? First you would hand over your pile of cash to the person on duty as payment, next he would count it give you a receipt and then after you the taxpayer left the room he'd take that hard-earned cash that you just forked over and throw it in the shredder or burn it it gets thrown away, destroyed but how come?
Because there's no further use for it just like a ticket to the super bowl after you enter the stadium and hand the attendant a ticket that was worth maybe a thousand dollars or so he then tears it up and discards it.
Can you now see why it makes absolutely no sense at all? To think that the government has to get money by taxing in order to spend in no case does it actually get anything that it subsequently uses.
So if the government doesn't actually get anything when a taxes then how does it spend? Let's say you get a social security check or a covid relief payment how did they pay for it? The treasury gets the central bank to type numbers into a computer and deposit money in your account that you have with your commercial bank that's it.

Okay now you should know the correct answer to the inevitable question, how are we going to pay for it when it comes to progressive policies? And the answer is
we pay for our policies the same way that the government pays for anything.
Your commercial bank has an account with the central bank, the government's bank, the same way that you have a bank account with your commercial bank.
To spend all the government does is get the central bank to type numbers into the necessary accounts this includes all federal government payments made in dollars and this includes making interest payments as well as social security and medicare payments you name it.
Seriously to avoid repeating myself i would highly recommend watching my deficit myth video if you haven't already and if you still don't fully get it there's no harm in watching it again and exploring the sources in the description for further learning

We shouldn't be using taxing the rich as a response to how we pay for it. The real question we should be asking is how will we resource it, the physical resources and productive capacity are what actually matter, money is just a way for the government to get people to do stuff which other people then pay to other people to do stuff and the cycle goes on.
We have an economy and when you pay money to get people to build roads build cities trains whatever it is, inflation doesn't automatically happen.
Inflation is whether prices rapidly go up continuously and there are many factors that can cause or prevent that i'd recommend listening to my podcast on one dime radio about inflation with dr phillip armstrong if you want to learn more about that.
Its honestly quite funny because franklin roosevelt didn't ask how are we going to pay for it when implementing the new deal which created social security medicare medicaid and a federal jobs program and the amount of money being deleted by taxes was far less compared to what was being spent.
Interestingly enough taxes were actually cut over time while spending increased especially
in the kennedy years yet the new deal programs were maintained and even expanded in the lyndon b johnson years all the while the us was spending even more on its military science and space exploration to compete with the ussr.
The fact that taxes don't drive government spending was already known by some government insiders before the world went off the gold standard such as beardsley rummel who served as chairman of the federal reserve in the 1940s. During the new deal era chairman ramo actually wrote a paper in 1946 titled "taxes for revenue are obsolete" which you can find in the description.
Now you can see that the evidence is clear and why this isn't really a debatable fact once you actually find out about it.

Okay then so if taxes don't actually fund federal spending then why do progressive politicians always say that they are gonna pay for things by taxing the rich?
Well here's the problem, the vast majority of people have a medieval understanding of economics and have no idea how the monetary system works Economic illiteracy is widespread, even among the left, there are many politicians who have zero idea how the monetary system works and some politicians who do know how it works but pretend that they don't such as bernie sanders and aoc.
When the media puts politicians like bernie sanders and aoc on the spot by asking them how they will fund their big progressive policies they are often afraid of telling the truth because they will think that they will be torn apart by the media and the misinformed masses.
Imagine if they were to actually tell the truth and just simply say, "we will pay for our policies by having the treasury get the central bank to make the money and deposit it in the appropriate accounts. How will we pay for it we make the money with keystrokes just like we do for everything else, how come you guys never ask where the money comes from when it comes to military spending?"
Sanders and aoc are afraid of telling it like it is because they don't want the public backlash of people saying, "what are these people crazy money has to come
from somewhere it doesn't just come from the sky, what do you think there's a magic money tree basic economics hello what about hyperinflation zimbabwe venezuela venezuela?"
So instead of having the guts to actually tell the truth, aoc and bernie sanders appeal to people's basic elementary common sense, they say "that the money will come from the rich and if that doesn't pay for it we will cut military spending and raise taxes even on the middle class if we have to."
While this might be a somewhat understandable rhetorical strategy to avoid short-term political backlash, it has terrible effects in the long run because it reinforces the backward economic illiteracy that misleads the public and it's quite frustrating because i know for a fact that bernie sanders and aoc do know modern monetary theory.
Stephanie kelton, a known mmt economist and author of the deficit myth was bernie sanders chief economic advisor and aoc even admitted in the past to having studied mmt and that it should be part of the public conversation.

Even though bernie sanders and aoc know that their tax policies aren't actually there to
pay for their programs they use their programs as a justification to tax the rich because they think that the robinhood narrative of taking from the rich to give to the poor plays well to people's common sense.
But capitulating to economic illiteracy actually has a corrosive
impact on political discourse and ultimately shoots the progressive movement in the foot.
It's quite hard already to pass legislation like medicare for all or green new deal through
government and by saying that we need to tax x y and z in order to fund it.
You just make the argument for your policy more convoluted and add unnecessary obstacles to it. When progressives connect taxing the rich to social programs, they inadvertently limit what is possible to whatever they can tax out of the rich.
By perpetuating this myth progressives are giving the rich a false sense of benevolence and give them a false sense of control over the government's capacity to provide social programs that people need even if it's not the intention.
The tax the rich narrative perpetuates the view that without rich people we can't have
nice things which is just plainly false.
Workers make things, people's labor is the real source of value produced in the world.
Any policy is possible to implement if there are the physical resources available being labor and natural resources.

The myth of taxpayer money in general also creates resentment between people in the working class because some working
class people will falsely think that their tax dollars are funding welfare programs for the lazy poor.
You hear this a lot in america especially "why should my hard-earned tax dollars fund other people's health care? i don't want my tax money to pay for lazy people on welfare?"
You could dispel this narrative quite easily just by dispelling the myth that taxes fund government spending.
Connecting taxing the rich as a way to pay for progressive legislation also just makes it a lot harder to pass legislation through government because if the logic is
taken literally you need to tax the rich first before you can implement the progressive policies, which is an especially hard thing to do in a corporately managed democracy like the united states .
You don't need to tax the rich to provide affordable housing, you don't need to tax the rich to fund universal healthcare and education, all you need is the real resources available to do these things.

When we do talk about taxation we should not talk about it in terms of funding things.
The discussion should be more shifted towards deterring behaviors that society agrees to be socially damaging and taxes can be used to reduce inequality as stated before, but this highly depends on the type of taxes and even the taxes that do reduce inequality don't actually get at the root cause of it.
In fact certain taxes that we perceive as progressive can actually be regressive such as corporate taxes. Little known fact corporate taxes are regressive because in almost all cases higher corporate taxes just end up being paid indirectly by the corporation's workers or consumers via wage cuts in price hikes. Furthermore even though certain taxes such as estate taxes and capital gains taxes can be more effective means of reducing inequality on paper, raising taxes on the top 1 percent won't automatically make the lives of the 99 percent any better.
No matter how high you raise the top marginalt ax rates capitalists will still control the means of production they will still control people's working lives. Taxing the rich doesn't actually do anything to rid their control over the means of production and their ability to set wages and prices. When your boss is still treating you like crap underpaying you, giving you crappy hours none of this will change whether the boss's tax rate is 10 or 20 percent higher.
Workers need to own the means of production and we need to collectively own our country's natural resources and services that everybody depends on.
If a corporation is evil whether by destroying the planet exploiting workers on a mass scale or both then you don't tax evil, nationalize it make it public property and allow the public to democratically decide what to do with it. You don't tax chevron and exxon mobil to stop climate change nationalize them and then decide what to do with them.

Again while not against taxing the rich as a light reform to mitigate the symptoms of mass inequality, this does not address the root cause of inequality which is private property, as pointed out a long time ago by prophetic socialists and even early liberal philosophers like jean-jacques rousseau. It's necessary to point out that private property is not the same thing as personal property. Personal property is what you use for personal use, private property is used for monetary exchange and the accumulation of profits so no, nobody will make you share your toothbrush or ronald reagan body pillow under socialism.
But one of the most visible forms of private property that has a very corrosive impact on society is real estate. When people own multiple real estate properties that increase in value over time which they are able to rent out for income, owners of property benefit at the cost of tenants and future homeowners because they seek to continually increase the rent extraction income and the equity value of their property. Capitalist real estate investors also want artificial scarcity in the housing markets so that property values can stay as high as possible, which is why capitalist politicians are generally very against public housing programs or rent control.
Ironically enough the commodification of real estate is so dumb and awful for society that even adam smith hated it. Yes adam smith the founder of capitalist economics as we know it hated landlords and saw no use for them.
If we really want to reduce inequality we need to decommodify real estate by putting a strict cap on how many properties a person js allowed to own. Seriously who needs more than two homes and why does anybody need to have mansions the size of universities or why do rich people need to have huge swimming pools with more water than an entire indigenous reserve?
The unequal exuberance of the rich is a decadent embarrassing waste of resources instead of just taxing we would do a hell of a lot more to reduce inequality by imposing a strict limit on the amount of property someone can own and implementing an ambitious good auality public housing program which would drastically lower the values of properties in the real estate market and the amount of rents that landlords can charge. Although I don't think landlords should exist at all but that's another story.

To conclude stop using the argument that we need to tax the rich to fund social programs.
And every time you hear a person use these economically illiterate arguments about taxes or the deficit just send them my videos okay good and if they don't get it send it to them again.
Lastly i would like to thank my patrons. while pledging 5 or 10 bucks a month might be a small amount on an individual level your collective support can make a big difference in this channel's success special thanks to these extra generous patrons who have supported me thus far

 

[DeepEcoCel]

go savesubs.com, link video and copypasta the subtitles here nigga in case it gets baleeted or the channel wiped cuz the jewtuber said something a kike doesn't like

---

hey internets here's an interesting question you may have heard about the concept of Class Warfare, or the idea that there exists different classes of people;
that those in one class exploit and take advantage of the other;
and that the history of humanity is a history of this constant struggle between the class of honest people and those who are in an exploitative class whose incentives lie in trying to control the others, often with varying forms of coercion.

This type of thinking is generally attributed to Karl Marx and his theories of class conflict and exploitation.
The question is this: What if Marx was actually correct about both of these things but fundamentally wrong on just what specifically classes are, and how the process of economic exploitation really operates?
Let's now do a quick dive into Marx's theory of class conflict and identify what is wrong with it.
Marx saw a class based on a person's relationship to the means of production. In other words whether or not they own the stuff that is used to make more stuff. This is an oversimplification but it's close enough, with said owners being referred to as the bourgeoisie class and those who own land as landowners and those who only have their labor being the proletariat.
 To simplify this imagine a cereal making factory which produces delicious but terrible for you sugary cerno flakes owned by Marissa and a bunch of plebbiters.
As members of the proletariat the plebs here only have their own labor to sustain themselves and thus they must sell that labor to Marissa while working in her Factory. The plebs produce 500 worth of cerno flakes each day but Marisa only pays them 200 for their full day of labor. After another 200 costs of production are accounted for Marissa is pocketing the remaining of 100 as profit.
According to Marx this one hundred dollars should rightfully belong to the workers and not Marisa as it is value extraction of the product of their labor which they refer to as Surplus Labor Value. In simpler terms Marx argues that the difference between the value of what the proletariat laborer made and how much the Bourgeois owner pays them is theft. This is the basis of Marx's Exploitation Theory. Communists will also argue that since in a capitalist society the workers are not allowed to simply take back this Surplus, the relationship between them and the owner is a course inherent combative one since the owner wants to maximize profit by paying the workers less while the workers always want to make more.
This difference in interest creates a class conflict.
Alll of  this is an oversimplification but if you have read any leftist Theory or watched any common videos on the subject you'll quickly find out that this is pretty much how it goes.

So then what are the flaws of Marx's Theory?
Well the answer to that can be found by asking yourselves this simple question: Just where do the means of production come from?
Anyways let's say one of these plebs, let's just call him Bob, besides that they are going to stop whining and actually do something about their situation so he decides to stop buying pumpkin spice lattes from Star Cuts every day with the other plebs as well as other Cuts until he is saving about 25 percent of his wages which after about five years he is then able to open his own business which produces pumpkin soy. I mean what else did you expect?
Anyways in terms of Marx's Theory Bob is now the owner of a means of production. Let's break down the requirements of what he did to achieve this.
Well first off is the difference in time preferences, is the other plebs would rather enjoy the instant gratification of lattes every day rather than investing their money in future endeavors. And to some degree this makes sense because tomorrow is uncertain when given the choice of being given one grand a day or being given one grand a year from now just about every sane person will choose to be given that one grand now this is because time itself is limited and thus has value, which is why in reality safe Investments generally will pay you more for waiting which explains why things like capital investments or certificates of a deposit and various forms of investing exist and why people will pay you for your time.
In this way there is also the simple fact that Bob is taking a risk with his product: what if no one wants to buy his product? Bob has to hire some plebs of hiis own to help produce in his Factory and while they are getting paid regardless of whether or not the pumpkin soy sells Bob really only makes money if consumers decide his product is worth their money to part with it.
This is where we start to see the real relationship between owner and worker. The so-called labor Surplus can just as easily be seen as the worker paying the owner for their time and risk investment, it is in fact a mutually beneficial and voluntary transaction where time and risk are being traded for steady guaranteed immediate wages.
Therefore Marx's theory of class and exploitation doesn't make any sense because it fails to account for this value of time and it also fails to properly understand how time can be traded. The absence of this critical component of Economics in Marx's theories completely ruins the basis of his thought process hence why he reaches such absurd conclusions in his class and Exploitation Theory.
This also shows an additional flaw with the Labor Theory of Value and its inferiority to the Subjective Theory of Value, which Marxist often defend with a circular argument where their interpretation of empirical data is assumed to be correct in order to prove that it's correct, which is of course invalid reasoning which I have already covered in my previous video on Master plus Labor Value.
This also shows why there's no coercion as it is entirely the pleb's choice whether they want to trade their labor and enjoy instant gratification with the money they get from working at Maris's factory or if they wish to tread the same path as Bob with a lower time preference. Their claims of coercion are based on the fact that in a capitalist society people are allowed to defend their private property meaning their claims are nothing more than a dishonest leap of linguistic gymnastics.
Commies think that they should be allowed to steal other people's property and if simply reworded this belief to make it sound like they are the victims the reality is no one is stopping those in the proletariat from exchanging their time preference to risk starting their own business, or is there?

Let's turn this upside down and show why Marx is actually correct about the existence of class coercion and exploitation in this world, he was only wrong about the specific details.
If you have actually looked into what it takes to start a business you may have noticed that it's not very easy. Allow me to introduce you to an alternative theory of class and exploitation. So ask yourself this what does a robber have in common with a corrupt politician? The answer is that they both steal for a living using the threat of violent aggressive coercion as opposed to actually producing a good or service that consumers would want to voluntarily purchase. Neither of them are producing anything of True Value thus they are both non-productive. In other words there is a non-productive political class which uses aggression to get what they want, at odds with a productive class which most of us belong to. Where we operate under the rules of producing a good or provide that which other people actually want for, the robber (this is obvious) he comes up to people sticks a gun in their face demands money and then tries to live off this cycle of non-production at least until he gets caught, but for the corrupt politician things get more complicated because he can make his actions of theft legal at least in the eyes of the law he rules over.
Your money is stolen from you indirectly via inflation due to bad monetary policy and directly via taxation, you have no say in this manner if you do not pay your taxes or live under these laws men with guns who work under the corrupt politicians will come after you, if you resist they will use violence against you so this guy is therefore just as much of an aggressive thug as the robber is. The reality of his thievery has just been obfuscated with extra steps.
And how does he spend your money? Well that's where the real exploitation comes in, he spends billions sometimes even trillions of your money benefiting his political allies, often creating subsidies and spending packages specifically designed to cater to them while further using his power of coercion harming his political opponents and or the competitors of his allies.
Whether or not regular people actually
want money to be spent in his desires is irrelevant as that is the nature of the non-productive class it gets to ignore any voluntary market forces and simply use aggression to steal and reallocate resources instead of peaceful operation and trade that the productive class must play by.
A quick look through human history shows that this definition of class conflict is a much better fit than what Marx came up with. Just about every war that has been fought can be described as those with political power attempting to use aggression to force others to provide them with resources and internal Market struggles within a country can also be understood by this conflict between the peaceful and voluntary versus the aggressors who just take what they want.

But to really understand this let's go back to Marisa in her Factory.
Let's now say that Marissa has a bigger competitor, Mr Heckle who produces an inferior product to cerno flakes but in larger quantities but this is no concern to him because unlike Marisa Mr Heckle has correctly identified the corrupt politicians as being a member of the non-productive class and he has no problem getting in on the action so he offers said politician a large sum of money as a campaign donation, wink wink nudge nudge, while asking for regulation to be passed that bans some of the crucial ingredients present in cerno flakes. The result is that Marissa is forced to shut down and now the previous laborers in her Factory must work for Mr Heckle instead who then exploits the artificially reduced competition in the market to cut their wages from 200 a day that they were making under Marissa to 100 a day. It is this reduction of wages as a result of complex backroom deals involving the non-productive class that is the true mechanism by which laborers wages are being stolen from them.
Ordinarily those with skills in working
a cereal production factory would have multiple businesses to choose from to take on an employment contract and the value of their labor would be based on the forces of supply and demand just like everything else in the market. These factories which offer better pay and better benefits packages would be able to demand higher skilled workers but now that Mr Heckel has partnered with the non-productive political class to bully his competition away he has granted an unnatural Monopoly.
The free market forces are no longer protecting the workers wages from being arbitrarily reduced, to make things even worse these unnecessary and aggressive regulations also make it harder in some cases legally impossible for Bob to build his own business Bob now must trade significantly higher amounts of his time and effort and it comes with significantly more risk since there is a chance that a politician could just shut down his newly built business for nonsensical made-up reasons at any time.

And don't count on the mainstream media to tell the people the truth about what's going on they too are in bed with the non-productive class and regularly benefit from their subsidies, they are in on the scam and thus work with the regime to keep people misinformed via propaganda.
And so to wrap this up I can finally talk about what this image right here really means it is not just the identity politics culture war that the left is distracted by but also an absurd and painfully misguided theory of class and exploitation which distracts them from the true class conflict.
Adding to their confusion and lack of understanding furthering their status as the man who agrees with the establishment who thinks he is part of the resistance Meme, and you can see this in a lot of Redtube content, for all their talk of muh libertarian socialism and being against muh hierarchies, they're very quick to justify voting for higher taxation and voting for greater power to the political non-productive class.
The result is that the regime remains in power and continues to exploit them just like they have always done.

Anyways that's all for now thanks for watching if you enjoyed the video feel free to like subscribe tip or leave a comment or whatever for the algorithm till next time

You think the people on this site can't bear to watch a 10-minute video?

 

[Karenin]

You think the people on this site can't bear to watch a 10-minute video?

I can't bear to spend 10minutes on a jew site

 

[faded]

Shut the fuck up gentiles just give me all your $$$$$ already jews are supposed to be rich gentiles poor it’s not that fucking complicated ok I need more $$$$ for my extravagant lifestyle so you filthy goyim bettER put in more hours (in gta)