This is a video I found last week. I think it can relate to what we've been learning over the weeks.

I know it isn't stated in the video. But while I was watching this, I remembered the industrial revolution. This was a time when manufacturing and technology was advancing forward.

I thought about if there could come a crisis along with the use of the internet?

All over the world (in my opinion) the biggest advance in mankind's achievement was the advance in communication. It's become become extremely influential in almost everything we do. The market has even moved on to the internet. It's even gone to a point where it could be a source of easy money.

Let me put it this way, when a web developer creates an application for a phone or the internet he could could sell it over the internet. When people buy that application using their credit cards (this includes foreign countries too) that money would be sent to the country of the web developer. This makes the internet a source of income for an economy right? Please note that successful applications could earn $200,000 in a few months. If people did this on a large scale just like the industrial revolution would there come a crisis?

Could there be a consequence to connecting the world. There are some terrorism threats that could arise from the net. Could there be more.

Karl Marx Explains the Labor Theory of Value

- The main points of the labor theory of value are stated here. It was said that the worker is just being paid enough to survive, while the extra goes to the employer. Out of the labor of the worker, the employer makes far more than what he pays the worker. This makes the employer richer and the worker becomes poorer.

Exploitation nowadays

Exploitation is the act of using something for another purpose or the act of using something in an unjust or cruel manner. In exploitation, people are being mistreated and unfairly used for the benefit of other people. Their talents, skills and work are being used for the benefit of others and little or no benefit for themselves.

With this definition, I think there are a lot of workers at present who are being exploited. What is the government doing about this situation? Are they aware of this and just simply allowing it?

Alienation

As a fine arts student, what i learned to appreciate in Marx is the value he gave to creativity as the most important aspect of a person.

In his analysis of the capitalist mode of production, he showed the damaging effect of the division of labour to the being of a person.

I know the importance of seeing a creative product as a result of my imagination, but in a capitalist system the artist's work is treated more as a product.

i once saw a movie "Sea Biscuit" which begins with showing the making of cars as a product of the division of labour. i remember the lines saying "under the division of labour seamstresses became button-holers, furniture makers became knob-turners. The beginning of the division of labour was the end of imagination." These words struck me. I can now understand that if a seamstress just makes a part of a dress the whole day, like a sleeve or a collar, without seeing the whole dress, then how alienating that would be.

If i am an artist and i am hired to do only certain effects in an animation process and if I will never get to see the end product, i would feel that i am an alien to myself. This will surely result in the dulling of my imagination. Marx's idea of imagination has opened my eyes to what is happening these days. We and our works are being turned into commodities. Can artists live in such a condition? If my imagination would be dulled, will i still be a person?

Of Ideas, and Material Force and self-change.

In Dialectical Materialism, the spiritual world is not separated from the material world and thus, ideas and matter are always in the same plane. Matters can only be tackled by a material force but an idea can be a material force if it captured the allegiance of the masses.

Now with this, I am supposing that in terms of Dialectical Materialism an idea even if it captured an individual cannot be counted as a material force, if 1.) It cannot bring change in a certain phenomenon 2.) It cannot cause an impact to society.

An idea must capture a wide united audience, and unite in a way that the effort that will given by the mass for the idea is collective in nature and not individualistic.

So is the concept of "ako mismo." be counted as a material force, if it gives a freeway for individualistic paths to be constructed? Can real change in terms of dialectical materialism be reached with this concept?

On Privatization

According to Adam Smith, man's natural unending needs and wants are directed by an invisible hand, the rules governing the market, especially the law of supply and demand.

He proposed a let alone policy, on which the government only role in the economy is to provide security and stability and maintain the rules of the trade.

With this minimal government involvement in the market, privatization comes to play. Privatization, is the process of transferring a public service given by the public sector in the hands of the private sector of society. Privatization, being a concept of free market, aims to achieve the goals of a competitive market involving efficiency in terms of profit and usage. With this, is privatization good or bad?

Why did the old Hegel supported monarchies

In his early years, Hegel was a liberal who carries French revolutionary ideas. He supported the overthrow of all monarchies. Why is it that when he got old, he changed his views and became a conservative?