Construit pour s'effondrer : outils pour comprendre le système !

My friends. Hello. By popular demand, the car is back for this video. So this isn't a German car, this is a yogurt pot. I don't know how old it is, but it's a real antique. In any case, today we're going to talk about Marxism. Last time I stressed the need for a revolution in the sense, my friends, if you look, the system is collapsing. It's not a system that needs a retaliatory measure, that needs a little reform. No, no, it's really a system that is collapsing. But hey, the good news is that all the old systems, feudalism, slavery, other systems have collapsed. There's no reason why this one should last forever. So there you have it. Now, there's one very important thing. When I explained in the last video a little bit about what we are going through, there is perhaps one point that I did not convey with the importance it deserves. If you like. We look at each one of us, we look at the problems in our lives or the problems we are facing from our own personal perspective. There is someone who thinks that medicine has collapsed. There is someone who is against the education system. There is someone who finds inflation unbearable, another who has trouble finding a job, and so on and so forth. And everyone sees their problem as if it were a unique problem, potentially disconnected from everything else, when in reality, everything is connected to everything else. And what we are seeing today is the result of a system. Without reforming the system, we will not solve its problems. We can always try to tackle it individually by looking at life through a tube and then trying to ignore everything else. But we won't get very far. Let me give you an example. In the last video, I talked about wild privatization, where we have very important needs, essential human needs, like water, for, for example, running water, that are privatized. And that means they are then bought up by financial groups, by trading groups, often international groups that do not necessarily have the public interest at heart, who do not work in a public service approach, but in a commodification approach. Everything is a commodity. Everything must be sold, everything must be negotiated, and everything must be open to competition. So with this, we will end up with our basic needs being held hostage by forces, the forces of money, right? And then we are forced to pay them a rent. So our basic needs are transformed into income. And of course, we can't say no, we can't refuse, we can't push them away, because we simply have no choice. Once again, these are basic needs. In the United Kingdom, we are selling off medical practices. You go to a Medical practice. You'll see that your medical practice is now part of the so and so group. And you look well, it's an American company that belongs to the financial group that has bought thousands of doctors and dentists practices, all of which transform our health into income and so on. Privatization can go very far. I'll give you an example, perhaps a controversial one, won't I? And you'll see that privatization goes extremely far. Let me tell you. Lets take for example the French law on secularism, the law that enshrined the dismantling of the church in France. It's your law. You can say, well listen, from your Marxist perspective. Well, it's a law. It has nothing to do with Marxism in any way. You can't read it to me from a capitalist perspective. Well, yes we can, let me tell you. By destroying France, which was the daughter of the church, by destroying the Christian religion, what was the goal of France really from a purely capitalist perspective? Well, it was to put religion in competition with other religions. It was to open the religious field to non competition. Quite simply, at the beginning you can see it's like the EOS company. At the beginning you had a general EOS company, then you had 50 companies competing. Well, it's the same for religion. You have a religion that was technically a state religion. Technically it's a religion that had a monopoly on religious fact and space. In, in France and in all western countries it was the same. And what did we do? We dismantled this religion to make it compete with other religions that came to express themselves in the same territory. So we are clearly in a market economy, competition logic applied to religion. And in the same way we are going to apply the market economy to language. Right? The French language is becoming a competition or in competition in France with other languages. So from time to time there are patches that are put in place, but it doesn't change anything. For example, when there is a French law that requires radio stations to play a certain percentage of French songs, well, it's someone somewhere who wanted to put in a patch. But you can see that in the grand scheme of things it won't change anything. So you have that at the level of culture. You also have culture that is becoming a market in the sense that it is once again becoming open to competition. Language, I was talking about the French language is not really the language of France anymore. But there are so many languages that can claim linguistic space. And in the long term you can also have that for traditions, customs and ways of life. And then in the end you can even have that for national identity. That's what we're going to do. We have a national identity that monopolizes space. So what are we going to do? We're going to open it up to competition. So we're going to break up national identity and allow other identities to come and express themselves. And then we're going to let the laws or market mechanisms operate. You can see that what I'm denouncing actually applies at all levels, at all scales. You're going to have that level. So now let's go back to our history. Karl Marx was born in 1800. 18. 18, yeah, roughly 18. Let's start with 1800s. I would say 1818, but I would give that as more or less five years. So he died in the late 1880s or so. Right. So he lived during the 1800s. And where did he live? In the United Kingdom. He was originally German. He was born on the border between France and Germany and then he was expelled. He was originally a philosophy professor and he went to live in the United Kingdom. 4. I defy you, I defy anyone to go and live in the United Kingdom and not develop a Marxist critique of capitalism. I mean, I want to tell you that it was in London that Karl Marx became a Marxist, because it was a country that really instrumentalized, that pushed to its quintessence the society of, what would I call it? I would say it is the predatory society, a society where the strongest crush the weakest. Okay, let me give you just one example where the system is designed to crush you. Let me give you a simple example. In the United Kingdom, you now have what's called the council tax. You can call it a local tax. Okay, It's a local tax. It's calculated for you every year it's sent to you, okay? It depends on the value of the home you live in, not your income. And in fact, it's always been more or less like this. At one time, the British would close the windows or build ugly houses or houses with no view on purpose to reduce the value of their property and lower local taxes. And that can go a long way. So as I was saying, for example, it's divided into monthly installments. So the annual payment is divided into monthly installments. So you pay for 10 months and then for two months we don't pay for the month. So imagine that they created a system and you see that these are really sick brains, really deranged brains that write this. Ah, well, if someone misses monthly payments, but when someone pays late and then they pay on the 15th of the month, and then three months later, they still have the payment incident. Then they pay late and well after two or three times. What do we do? We're going to demand the full amount. Now, this time we're going to ask them to pay the whole year in one go. You see? What kind of mindset is that? In fact, these are the same brains that design these chairs in the parks and then put spikes or devices to prevent STF from coming to sleep on them. These are people who have developed this taste for hunting humans, the taste for predation to humans. It's literally cannibalism. Humans have always been revolted by capitalism, by capitalism, by cannibalism, I said. And in fact, they've really transformed it into a cult. So you have someone who has an incident in their life, who has money problems in their life, who can't pay. So what do you do? You're going to raise the bar even higher to push them even further into financial distress, to crush them even more in. And you can see that with this kind of mentality, which is. Which is practically at every level in everything you interact with, you're going to see this. You understand that Karl Marx became a Marxist or became a Marxist in the United Kingdom. So let me tell you this. His critique of capitalism was formulated in a book called Critique of Political Economy that we know as Capital. Okay? And this book, part of which was published posthumously. Well, it changed, if you like it, it changed a lot of things. It had an influence, I would say I have to. We have to go to books like the Bible or books like that to find books that have had as much impact on so many people, and this one in an extremely short time, knowing that the book was written about 150 years ago. So I was saying in this review, he's going to make a certain number of observations. He's not going to give solutions. Of course, Karl Marx doesn't give solutions. Karl Marx doesn't write a book about communism, about socialism. He doesn't say we should do this or that, even though he wrote other books besides capital. But he's not someone who comes up with solutions or recipes. The solutions subsequently were imagined by others, others who came in the following century or later. Hey, he was already dead. They arrived and said, well, we understand Karl Marx's criticisms, and the solution for us is this, that. And everyone came up with solutions. But Karl Marx is not responsible for that. He was already dead when people came up with alternatives to capitalism. Okay, so how did he see things so he saw it like this. He sees that we have in the world today, in his time. But today it's the same, it hasn't changed. We have what we call the proletariat. The proletariat is people. Oh, it's you and me. In reality, the proletariat is people who work, who work to earn a living. Maybe we'll say the opposite, or rentier. The proletarian is someone who doesn't own the means of production. Because if you look at the evolution of. How did the production company evolve? Well, at some point we had a situation, especially since 1760, with the arrival of the Industrial Revolution, where production, if you like, was concentrated in production sites. That means offices, factories, workshops, and with or against which the individual had no way of really competing. An individual had no way of competing with a large factory. It's like, for example, if you take a supermarket that opens. Can the guy who owns a grocery store, or the butcher, or the baker stand up to this behemoth? He can't stand up to it. So what's his path? He's going to work for them, right? He's going to work for them. By the way, there's a very interesting film. It was the Charlottes, if I remember correctly. Yes, it was the Charlottes, where we have Gallabreu, who runs a grocery store. No, it's not a grocery store. Yes, it's a grocery store with all that. And in fact, a large hypermarket is going to open opposite it. And in fact, what's going to happen is that this is going to destroy all the businesses in the city. And the shopkeepers, when they complain to Michel Esser, who was the owner of the supermarket, well, they want to tell them, listen, I'm hiring you, you who are a butcher. Well, how much do you earn? Well, I'm going to hire you at my place. You're going to run the butcher's shop. Uh, what do you do? You're the cafe. You're the cafe owner. Well, you're going to run the supermarket. Cafe. In fact, what's happening, if you like. And we've seen this. We've seen this acceleration in our lifetime. It started in the time of Karl Marx, but today we see it more and more. What do we see in reality? We see that a tiny part of the population, a tiny part, let's say, call them what you want, right? He calls it the bourgeoisie. We can call them the forces of money, or the oligarchy, or the imp for 1000, or whatever you want. Give it to them, it doesn't matter. Well, they will monopolize, will own and monopolize the tools of production, of subsistence. That means they will monopolize all the tools in society. And in fact, everyone else is forced to work for them. So we have the proletariat. These are people who will be forced to sell their time, right? The proletarian exists as long as he can sell his time. Then the day when we no longer need him, well, we send him packing. By the way, in capital there is a very interesting comparison between the slave and the proletarian. Ah, the slave may have an advantage. And perhaps we will follow the same logic as at the beginning of the video on the opening up to competition. It is that, if you like, the slave, chronologically speaking, is a. It is a. It is a less evolved social construct than the proletarian, because the proletarian lives later, chronologically speaking, except that the slave had advantages over the proletarian in the sense that the slave was owned by a single master and his work was guaranteed. What did we do with the proletarian? The proletarian is simply the opening up of work to competition. This means that slavery has been opened up to competition. This means that the slave is now forced to run from master to master in search of a place where he can sell his labor, where he can sell his time, he can sell his energy to be able to access the means of subsistence, to be able to earn a living. Do you see what I mean? So that's kind of the idea. Now, when you look further, you'll see that the proletarian is not going to depend on the salary. That means that when we say proletarian, we don't always think of someone who earns a poor living or who works at the. Who is paid by the day or whatever. No, that's not necessarily it. Even if you're, I don't know, putting your cashiers at the Societe General and you earn a. You earn a good salary. I don't know, you're three to four times the minimum wage. You're still a proletarian. Why? Because being proletarian isn't a question of income. It's a question of coercion. It's a question of the obligation to work. That means even if you earn four or five times the minimum wage, as long as you are forced to go and work for someone else, you are a proletarian. Even if we say that there are perhaps some who are better off than others. Now, the reality is that in the Marxist definition, there is one very important thing, which is that commodities, any commodity that is subject to competition, see their price fall so that in general, it ends up reaching the cost price. That means that, for example, if you have 10 producers who produce corn, they will underbid each other year after year after year, until the point where there is practically no more profit. You see this, for example, I don't know. You see this on ebay. You see this on Amazon, FBAs, for example. All these people who sell on Amazon, who sell on ebay, how do they do it? They will always compete with each other. So he says to himself, come on, I have a margin of 20%. Maybe I'll make 19 like that. I'll sell better than the other guy. The other guy will say, oh, it's going to go down. Well, I'll take an 18% margin. After that, it goes down, down, down. And in extreme cases, we even end up with people who sell at a loss. These are people who sell with negative margins, hoping that the customer will stay with them or that they will continue to survive in one way or another. But there are a lot of people who sell. So according to the Marxist definition, labor is a commodity, and it is subject to the same rules as commodities such as corn or wheat seeds, for example. So it will end up. It ends up in a society like this, its value ends up falling until it reaches its cost price. That means that ultimately, what is the cost price of labor? It's the cost of living. That means rent bills, electricity bills, gas bills, food bills, buying shoes, glasses, all that. And in fact, that's the cost, you know, it's the cost price of labor. It's what we have to give to the person so that they continue to exist tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and the day after tomorrow so that they can continue to come to work. That's the cost price. And in reality, what happens is that the price of labor decreases like any other commodity, until it reaches its cost price. And from that point on, what happens? Well, from that point on, we have people who, how should I say, don't work to pay for their living, but rather live to work. That makes them prisoners of work. So when you work and earn the minimum wage, you're not doing charity? It's not charity. It's just that you're receiving the minimum wage, but in general, you've created value for your employer. The value you've created is greater than the minimum wage. But how is the difference articulated? You have the difference. In the Marxist vision, it's that the boss keeps it, it's not the boss in the sense of the one who directs you in more than one. It's rather the one who owns and monopolizes the production tool or for whom you are forced to work. So that's how it works. It works like this. It works that, for example, if you bring back this value when you work, you bring back the value of your salary. Let's say we're talking about weekly salary just to do that. Let's say you go to work on Monday or Tuesday, and in those two days you've already brought in the equivalent of your salary to your employer. And in fact, for many people, it's even faster than that. Ah, you work in some fast food places or something, and you get paid. You get paid. I don't know, you get paid €15 an hour. You can end up making €15 for your restaurant owner. Literally in the first four minutes, you have four, two or three customers who come in. That's good. They've earned your salary, and from there on you're going to bring them profit. So from a Marxist perspective, you're going to work for free. That means that if on Monday or Tuesday, you end up making your boss earn your weekly salary, okay, well, on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, you work for free to create what is called surplus value. And what do we do with this surplus value in a society? So this question of what we do with the surplus value, who is going to capture it? Will it be redistributed to the workers? Will it be redistributed to society as a whole? Or will it be used to create income for investment firms located on the other side of the world? Well, this question is extremely important because I'll tell you something, this question doesn't just define who will be rich, who will be poor, who will have a full account, who will have an empty account. It's not even that. It's a question that will define us as a society, that will define our lives, that will have extremely profound ramifications on our way of life. That's precisely the power of Marxist analysis. That means it's not just a question of money, like people who came before Marx, like David Ricardo, Adam Smith and others. It's not just that this time, it's extremely profound the way we're going to manage this as a society. And today, when you look at us as a society, you'll see that the choices we've made are choices for which we're paying the price, the damage we're paying for. For example, in Europe, we're going to pay a driver or a footballer for 80 million. His social price is 80 million. At the same time, we have people dying in hospitals, dying in corridors, because there simply aren't enough resources for emergencies. Do you see what I mean? So really there is this situation that influences our lives much more profoundly, much more profoundly than a question of money becoming rich and poor. These are choices, very important choices. So what happens is that once we have this part of the week, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, which is given away for free, is free labor as surplus value to the bosses. Well, we will arrive at a different story. The forces of money want to maximize this part, because at some point they ask themselves, why Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, why not have Tuesday also, as a free value creation for us? Because if you look at the capitalist system in which we live, you will notice that on all levels, it is addicted to surplus value. It wants more value at all costs. So how is it going to do it? There are several techniques. So there are several techniques making you work longer, making you work more intensely, increasing your productivity in one way or another. So that, for example, I'll give you a simple example. People used to work with pens, paper, registers, all that. Then computers arrived. What did computers do? It increased their productivity. So when they increase productivity, they automatically increase the surplus value. Each increase in productivity automatically increases the surplus value. Why? Because it allows you as a worker to work better, to work faster, to generate value faster. So if, for example, you put in two days a week to create your weekly salary, well, there comes a time when you're going to create your weekly salary up until the first day. This means that this time you work four days for free. And of course, then they'll say, well, why not do more? Why not put Leah in? Ah, why not put robots in? Why not reduce the number of people? Like, I have a factory with 100 people. If I introduce AI, robots, all that I can fire 90 people and keep only 10, and so on. So always try to maximize productivity. There's something terrible that we're seeing. You can look it up and you'll see these are pretty staggering figures. We'll see that the system in recent decades is where the pressure on the classes, the middle classes, and even the others comes from. We can talk about it. If you look, you'll see that we've increased productivity. Productivity has increased a lot, but wages haven't kept up. That means we're able to produce much more today than someone could in the 80s, for example, in the 90s, in the 70s, we produce much more Value. But salaries, they're low. What happens then? What happens is, for example, we have a capture of value because the forces of money, when they push us through different tools, different mechanisms of changing work, when we are pushed to create more value, it's not to increase our salary. When you have the performer behind you, whipping you to make you work faster, it's not so that he pays you more at the end of the day, it's simply to increase the value that he can extract from you. It's like the soul being beaten to make it go faster, you know, it's not in its interest. It's in the interest of the one who owns the car. So I was saying that when you look from the 60s to today, you'll see, for example, that the average salary of CEOs of companies has exploded. You know, you comparing companies, what was the salary of a CEO in terms of multiples? It's a multiple of what is the salary, let's say the median in the company. You'll find, for example, that in the 60s it was perhaps 25 to 30 times higher. Today it is 500 times higher. On average, we're going towards 500. Today. We even have CEOs who earn 7,000 times more than their average employee. So what are we doing? We are pushing through this choice that is being imposed on us. And we haven't even dismantled the mechanisms. We're starting to do it here. Well, what we are doing is that the surplus production and the improvement in our productivity are being used to create a windfall upwards. This means it's very simple. As Marx says, the more we. The more we grow in numbers, the more our wealth grows. And by the way, you notice one thing, and it's not a coincidence. It was predicted 150 years ago that today we are in a world where we have never had so many humans. Do you agree with me? There have never been so many humans on the planet today? Well, there have never been so many billionaires and trillionaires on the planet. Do you know what I mean? Why? Because we have created an operating system. We have created a system that constantly pumps wealth upwards. So the problem with these systems is that they know no limits. You know, that means that the more you give, the more you give, the more they take from you. And then six months later, they say to themselves, well, we have to take more, huh? So the more they take from you, the more they want. There's no limit to that. There's no limit to this game. And so the time comes when we find Ourselves as we are today, on the downward slope of capitalism. That means that at the beginning, capitalism could let go of a supplier, could let go of a car, a vacation, all that to give the impression that, well, there you have it, everything is fine in the best of the world and that we are collectively evolving. But that's not its nature. Its deep nature is not that. Its deep nature is to take everything it takes even your organs. You know, I can tell you about the history of organs. It's not a joke on my part. It's very, very serious. So what's happening is that today we are on the downward slope of capitalism and then it's going to take everything from us, it's going to ruin us all. And then we'll end up with no class average. We will end up with either the ompen proletariat for the majority of people, the penolitariat is people who are completely excluded from the labor market or the economy, right? These are people who have no economic clout, right? So more and more people are excluded, which means they will end up in precariousness, in the black market, fall into long term unemployment and everything. And then on the other side we will have billionaires and trillionaires. There you have it. That's it. That's it. And that's the choice we are making today. I'm telling you that it can't be fixed. It's not something we can just fix like that. And finally, I'll tell you something. I've seen the comments that say that yes, we need to return to more liberalism. We need less state interventionism and everything. That's not it. I don't really like that. I'll tell you why. First of all, many people have the impression that capitalism is a kind of liberalism, that capitalism doesn't need a state. That's not true. Capitalism always works hand in hand with the state. What is the state? I gave you the definition last time. The state is a committee that manages the affairs of the forces of money, that manages the affairs of the ruling classes, the affairs of the 1 in 1,000. It doesn't manage your affairs. Look at something, just a detail in passing. Today in the United Kingdom, you can get arrested for an English flag, okay? You put up an English flag, you can get arrested for that. In France you can get a fine for a French flag. However, the day they want you to die for their war, for wars of the ruling class, well, they manage the narrative. You're going to die. And this time you have the right to Take the French flag to go and die for it. And they tell you you're dying for France, you're dying for the French flag in real. You're not dying for France, you're dying for their sake, you're dying for them. Do you know what you mean? So if they can transform your life, your death into a kind of stumbling, stumbling kind of thing like they've done for centuries, well, they'll do it without a problem. Now, if you're stupid enough to go and die for them, to die for their war, while yelling at us that you're dying for principles or a country or something. Well, well, I mean, you've had too much of the discourse of the ruling classes. You need to detox a little bit from that. So I was saying there are people who say we need to. We need to move towards liberalism, which is the very natural and profound essence of capitalism. Well, that's. This is what is called capitalist salafism. Why salafism? If you like, It's a mentality, a mentality that we find among certain categories of Islamists or even moderate Muslims who believe that going back to the roots, you know, if you like, if Islam is doing badly, it's because we haven't applied it correctly. We have to go back to our roots. We have to go back to our sources. And so the more we sink into theocratic systems that are different, that don't work, the more they'll say, no, we have to go back to the roots. We have to do even more. Do you get the idea? So we're going to do more. So we're going to sink deeper and deeper, you see? So capitalist salafism is precisely a Salafism that consists of saying that the system we live in is not bad in itself, is not bad in itself, itself. But on the other hand, it needs to become authentic again. It needs to return to its roots. And that's not something that works. It's not something that can be dismantled quite easily. Okay? The reality is that the system needs to be not reformed, but needs a real revolution. There you have it, my friends. Thank you for watching this video right here, and feel free to continue asking questions and everything, and then we'll see you in the next one. See you soon.