The housing market one is a bad example. All of the real estate in the US was stolen through white supremacist fraud and perfidy and the housing market has been shaped by things such as redlining.
The problem is deeper than race discrimination by banks and realtors. Recall that the housing bubble was caused by NINJA’s and ARM’s, when the latter kicked in at the higher interest rate, foreclosures lept 10% of the mortgaged housing stock causing a global crisis in the derivatives market. Poor regulation replaced overregulation. But, the problem with the housing stock is that quality buildings are decreasing in availability, many houses are being rented, and the quality of housing: houses, condo’s and apartments is low requiring constant maintenance! There is a significant difference in housing quality between the highest poverty group and the lowest poverty group: blacks and whites. When you buy a house, you must include significant repairs: roof, HVAC, windows, drainage, rugs, kitchen and bath plumbing and remodeling, and rewiring. Navigating the contractors in the building industry is troublesome, also.
So they're saying that today's society has nothing to do with a conspiracy I'm mistaken well I find that very refreshing and look forward to a normal yet interesting life
The housing market example is rather ironic, considering Blackrock, Vanguard and SSG conspiring to buy swathes of the residential housing market and leaving them empty to drive up prices.
Who controls the fed? Who controls the media? Who has control of the business magnates that own the companies that print public school textbooks? Who are we not allowed to criticize? Who represents a lot more than 2.5% of most recent presidential cabinet's. Id say we need some sort of affirmative action to rectify these inequities manufactured by what are certainly "a number of incoherent and impersonal forces."
@@KONYLOVESKIDS im saying that it’s an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory because you (1) named the % of the population that Jewish people make up in the US in your comment about the group in question and then said that they were over-represented in the most recent presidents cabinet. You also said that this group “controls the fed”, “controls the business magnates”, and that you’re not allowed to criticize them. Those are all popular anti-Semitic tropes and dog-whistles and for the life of me I can’t conceive of what other group you might be talking about. Of course, you could always clear things up by saying precisely what group of people you were referring to who make up 2.5% of the us population, who “control” the business magnates and federal reserve. Why, if you’re talking about another group it seems like it would be incredibly easy for you to specify who you mean rather than being so purposefully “vague”.
Adam Curtis nailed conspiracy theory for me. He said it was a way to re-enchant the world through a distorted lens. A darkness in its centre that is impenetrable by reason. I really like Poppers thought on this one as well.
People living under capitalism we are indeed very controlled by a very few companies who in conjuction with government decide what we buy and even can control what we want
@@oliviamaynard9372 But maybe not. The Rollerball world is our world with very little alteration. The most important part to me is Jonathon's attempt to find and read a history book.
7:00 wouldn't the better example be to look at someone who is deliberately holding property, artificially lowering supply to increase property values? Most people don't have the capital or the desire to engage in these actions and these actions are dominated by a few large investment corps. both cases are examples of the market just working
I dunno, doesn't the argument that a handful of people control a lot of what happens in society make a lot of sense in the context of (say) colonialism and capitalism? For example, what's the rational explanation for why freemasons have fingerprints all over the American and Canadian state projects, but shouldn't receive any criticism for their proximity to Indigenous genocides?
This is an important thing that people often forget when discussing conspiracy theories: conspiracy theories require allegations of a *secret* cabal of *malicious actors*, not just a "handful of people". The controllers of capital or of a state are not a secret group: many stay out of the public eye, but it's not that hard to discover who they are if you dig a little. Lobbying groups are likewise not secret. With that all said, Popper's point isn't that conspiracies never happen, or that groups like the Masons are entirely innocent, but that it's bad sociology to attribute the workings of social systems to a group of specific people with bad intentions. Conspiracies do exist in real life, but they are under the purview of history rather than sociology. Particular conspiracies need to be proven on their own (that's the history part), but the mere fact that conspiracies occur does not imply that conspiracies play a major role in how society operates on a day-to-day basis (the sociology part). For example, capitalism, as a social system, does not depend on specific individual people to keep functioning. It requires social roles of capitalist and worker. The system doesn't care who fills these roles. A conspiracy theory looks at persons and groups, not systemic roles: a conspiracy analysis of capitalism says capitalism is unfair because of *who* wields the power (often the Masons, Jews, Catholics, bankers, "big companies" in toto, or whoever), rather than because of the nature of the capitalist-worker relationship itself.
Yes, it 100% does. Modern liberals play dumb and subterfuge over this to protect those exact systems and institutions of power; they're either useful idiots or playing defense for the system, with often a level of overlap between. Its all power politics skulldrudgery to cover up the cabal of elites behind western power structures.
As we know, Karl R. Popper's concept of the conspiracy theory of society is expounded in his book Conjectures and Refutations. As I have understood, this video outlines only the 4th section of the book concerning this concept. In the 16th section, part 7, there is Popper's important argument to be analized: Popper asserts here that conspiracies do not change the character of social life, and if no more conspiracies were arranged, society would essentially face the same problems that it always has. Is this argument correct? How can a negative influence not change the character of social life if society has improved its life due to pertinent social events and endeavour? In such a case, social life will become worse again.
At first I thought Occam's Razor. But really it's more of an attribution error? Powerful people's actions are all powerful ignoring the culmination of all those around them.
Perhaps conspiracies should be viewed within their temporal horizon and fears regarding the window of opportunity to alter future events. Take for example Hitler's theory of shrinking markets and his beliefs regarding Malthusian scarcity. A cabal of conspirators is not necessary for the development of a conspiracy theory: events themselves can conspire and our beliefs about the shaping of events.
"That marginalized group" seems to have quite some power over politics, banking, Hollywood, mainstream media, academia, hedge funds, social networks, big tech corporations... We saw how Kanye West, the richest black man in history was left without a bank account at JP Morgan and his Adidas contract for just an interview. You are attempting some serious gaslighting here!
If we subtract all the 'lizard people' and comparable conspiracy theories, conspiracy theorists are mostly people who don't have all the necessary information of the 'object', and who construct the structures, processes and motivations somewhat off the mark, some of them sticking too strongly in their favorite theories when additional and more accurate information comes around. Hence we are all to some extent 'conspiracy theorists', it all depends on who is looking at who, from what position, and with what knowledge. E.g. I may know more about politics than a average person, but if a senator with 40 years of 'rubber hits road' -insider knowledge of politics listens to my theories about politics, he may say something like, "That is too theoretical and vague. In real life politics functions this and that way ..." If the senator so pleases and he has the backing of the 'information megaphones', he could stigmatize me to be a 'conspiracy theorist' with some justification, like you and other political non-insiders. Also, when the information of 'conspiracy theorists' gets too accurate and/or truthful, and it is akward for the said senator, he may pull the protective 'conspiracy theorist' -stigmatization from his sleeve. On the balance it is important for the 'conspiracy theorists' to understand that their theories indeed are often lacking, flawed and gratuitously hostile to the point of stupid. If you e.g. think that you have become an expert of politics, economics and society by reading 2 - 3 months of seedy and "secret knowledge" -containing websites, then we can safely say that your theories are erroneous from the get go. "Secret knowledge" is mostly ----> blind men groping in the dark, reflects the conjectures of those who don't know and understand enough. And if you are indeed right about 50%, but the other 50% is nonsense, then your theory is wrong / too wrong. There are much more errors and inaccuracies than accurate truths, and mostly people miss the mark at least to some extent, but if 'conspiracy theorists' are of the 'developing and capable enough' -sort, they are like heat seeking missiles, who gets closer and closer to the truth as time passes. From the top-down, that kind of accuracy and knowledge of central real life societal and political scenes is mostly seen as problematic, so in addition to stigmatizations, truths are protected by e.g. information overload + non-confirmation of truths by the people in higher or significant network node positions. The former is mostly a non-planned product of technological development, the latter is at partly planned and partly evolved feature of public conversation. 'The little people' may collect plenty of accurate or fairly accurate information, and generate relatively many of good theories, but they rarely, if ever get confirmation from top-down publicly that with this or that theory they have indeed 'hit the mark'. Often the right and wrong theories of 'the little people' are equally maligned, dismissed, sidetracked or ignored by the media etc., so the 'the little people' stay confused, uncertain and hyperactive, perhaps reaching the point of hyper-analysis, which leads in effect to analysis paralysis. 'The little person' may have been right about certain political-economic constellation two years ago, but he never got confirmation about it, so he felt the need for more and more analyzing, developing new and newer theories, and now he is again safely in theoretical La-La-land, grasping at wrong theories, drowning in information overload and possible truths, no way of knowing where to (relatively) stay.
@@KONYLOVESKIDS Oligarchs' interests are convergent. On the important issues concerning the conditions that sustain them, they are in agreement. This is natural and requires little co-ordination of the kind you describe.
What about Peter Dale Scott, Alfred W. McCoy, and others in the emerging field of parapolitics, a.k.a. 'deep politics'? How about David Ray Griffin? Also, Jack Bratich's work on Conspiracy Panics.
Sounds like an a) apologetic way of saying 'only the conspiracies I subscribe to are factual'. Your example of (an overreaching conspiracy I presume) 'lizard people' reminds me of the hordes of people laughing at that as well as flatearthers all the while subscribing and wholeheartedly believing in other conspiracies they deem as true and valid due to differing reasons or b) a very Derridean way of saying no information comes across in the fully intended and accurate manner. A lack of knowledge does not automatically constitute a conspiracy imho
Hi there FB, I watch all of David's videos and get quite a bit out of them, but his weakness is communism. Compared to his usual high level of analysis, his anticommunism - although possibly well-considered? - comes out in asides no more substantive than the smears one hears everywhere, all the time, in the anticommunist West. David has hinted that there are other, much better alternatives to capitalism, but what those might be for him, I cannot say. Aside from that, David is the best introductory source for continental philosophy on the Internet. Although many of the philosophers he covers have roots in Marx, he treats them all fairly well.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Marx hardly had any suggestions about alternatives to capitalism. But if his analysis of capitalism can be faulted substantively, it would be of immense value. I've heard some criticisms but not much critique, unfortunately.
Hello! I love this! I host a 3rd party talk show. I also have a philosophy degree, and have studied much of what you discussed. I'd love to have you on the show.
Lenin, a conspirator. OK, let's say that is true. In the same sense one could say that James Madison was a conspirator. But Lenin, an adherent or promoter of conspiracy theories? Really? PS Perhaps David is just relaying Popper's contention that Lenin was a conspiracy theorist? Popper looks worse and worse as the capitalist world devolves! The next Popper paper to cover would be "The Poverty of Historicism."
@@TheoryPhilosophy Somewhat perhaps! But you will, as often as is appropriate, pause to mention where an idea seems odd or objectionable to you. Very creditably so, I should say. Poverty of Historicism next please!
Is there actually an article that Popper wrote with this title, or are these ideas gleaned from Popper's 'Conjectures and Refutations?' Near the end of Chapter 4 in a footnote, Popper surprisingly says about Karl Marx, "3 In the discussion which followed the lecture, I was criticized for rejecting the conspiracy theory, and it was asserted that Karl Marx had revealed the tremendous importance of the capitalist conspiracy for the understanding of society. In my reply I said that I should have mentioned my indebtedness to Marx, who was one of the first critics of the conspiracy theory, and one of the first to analyse the unintended consequences of the voluntary actions of people acting in certain social situations. Marx said quite definitely and clearly that the capitalist is as much caught in the network of the social situation (or the 'social system') as is the worker; that the capitalist cannot help acting in the way he does: he is as unfree as the worker, and the results of his actions are largely unintended. But the truly scientific approach of Marx has been forgotten by his latter-day followers, the Vulgar Marxists, who have put forward a popular conspiracy theory of society which is no better than Goebbels' myth of the Learned Elders of Zion." Marx initial foray was to criticize the 'conspiracy of landlords,' a feudal holdover still prominent today.
I am thankful to Popper for some of his contributions to quantum theory, but when it comes to politics I think he just completely missed the mark sometimes. Of course, he is right on this point here, but he failed to acknowledge that capitalist society is not a free society and that there are very real and deep power differences therein.
@@ultravioletiris6241 I won't stoop to making any personal criticisms of David, but I would be very happy indeed to hear some substantive criticisms of Marxism, rather than snarky asides, half-truths, and infamous distortions. But seeing someone so normally careful emitting Tourette-like slurs at any allusion to Marx does confirm my conviction that anticommunism per se is a mental disorder similar to antisemitism or racism.
David also has a video on this channel dealing with Jack Bratich's concept of Conspiracy Panics. (See Bratich's book of that title.) ruclips.net/video/MAtsExw_AYc/видео.html Does Popper's position on conspiracy theories reflect conspiracy panic? It's a question worth asking. Now, what about the political work of Peter Dale Scott, Alfred W. McCoy, and others in the emerging field of parapolitics (a.k.a. 'deep politics') and it's reception? How about David Ray Griffin?
You should check out Guy Debord’s second book Comments on the society of the Spectacle. It has a lot to see about the role of disinformation in capitalist society
Popper with that desperate lib cope of "Marxist analysis is also a conspiracy theory because I refuse to read Marx, much less understand him". It's a pity that the work doesn't go in the direction the title made me think it did (analyzing attribution to society itself as a form of conspiratorial thought). That would have been a lot more interesting as a set of ideas.
The housing market one is a bad example. All of the real estate in the US was stolen through white supremacist fraud and perfidy and the housing market has been shaped by things such as redlining.
Sp u are saying the people rating those loa s AAA were part of a white supremacist conspiracy?
The problem is deeper than race discrimination by banks and realtors. Recall that the housing bubble was caused by NINJA’s and ARM’s, when the latter kicked in at the higher interest rate, foreclosures lept 10% of the mortgaged housing stock causing a global crisis in the derivatives market. Poor regulation replaced overregulation. But, the problem with the housing stock is that quality buildings are decreasing in availability, many houses are being rented, and the quality of housing: houses, condo’s and apartments is low requiring constant maintenance! There is a significant difference in housing quality between the highest poverty group and the lowest poverty group: blacks and whites. When you buy a house, you must include significant repairs: roof, HVAC, windows, drainage, rugs, kitchen and bath plumbing and remodeling, and rewiring. Navigating the contractors in the building industry is troublesome, also.
So they're saying that today's society has nothing to do with a conspiracy I'm mistaken well I find that very refreshing and look forward to a normal yet interesting life
Lol. People buy this
The housing market example is rather ironic, considering Blackrock, Vanguard and SSG conspiring to buy swathes of the residential housing market and leaving them empty to drive up prices.
Who controls the fed? Who controls the media? Who has control of the business magnates that own the companies that print public school textbooks?
Who are we not allowed to criticize?
Who represents a lot more than 2.5% of most recent presidential cabinet's.
Id say we need some sort of affirmative action to rectify these inequities manufactured by what are certainly "a number of incoherent and impersonal forces."
@@KONYLOVESKIDS no one "controls the business magnates"
Someone lied to you about that, probably the business magnates.
@@KONYLOVESKIDSAnti-Semitic conspiracy theory alert.
@@galacticbluejay36 cant be a conspiracy if it's a #of impersonal forces. Also why antisemitic you are really jumping to crazy conclusions.
@@KONYLOVESKIDS im saying that it’s an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory because you (1) named the % of the population that Jewish people make up in the US in your comment about the group in question and then said that they were over-represented in the most recent presidents cabinet. You also said that this group “controls the fed”, “controls the business magnates”, and that you’re not allowed to criticize them. Those are all popular anti-Semitic tropes and dog-whistles and for the life of me I can’t conceive of what other group you might be talking about. Of course, you could always clear things up by saying precisely what group of people you were referring to who make up 2.5% of the us population, who “control” the business magnates and federal reserve. Why, if you’re talking about another group it seems like it would be incredibly easy for you to specify who you mean rather than being so purposefully “vague”.
Where can we find this text?
Where can I find the text of this essay? I've searched everywhere and only find people talking our writing ABOUT it, not the actual text.
I do believe that many actors moving in similar directions can influence culture, and that manipulates public thought.
Adam Curtis nailed conspiracy theory for me. He said it was a way to re-enchant the world through a distorted lens. A darkness in its centre that is impenetrable by reason. I really like Poppers thought on this one as well.
People living under capitalism we are indeed very controlled by a very few companies who in conjuction with government decide what we buy and even can control what we want
Absolutely. My favorite dystopian story is the movie "Rollerball" (1975).
@@numbersix8919 is that like running man?
@@oliviamaynard9372 The Running Man game show might take place in the Rollerball future, if that's what you mean.
@@numbersix8919 Thank you for the clarification
@@oliviamaynard9372 But maybe not. The Rollerball world is our world with very little alteration. The most important part to me is Jonathon's attempt to find and read a history book.
7:00 wouldn't the better example be to look at someone who is deliberately holding property, artificially lowering supply to increase property values? Most people don't have the capital or the desire to engage in these actions and these actions are dominated by a few large investment corps. both cases are examples of the market just working
I dunno, doesn't the argument that a handful of people control a lot of what happens in society make a lot of sense in the context of (say) colonialism and capitalism?
For example, what's the rational explanation for why freemasons have fingerprints all over the American and Canadian state projects, but shouldn't receive any criticism for their proximity to Indigenous genocides?
Just because Freemasons are prevalent in government and government commits genocide does not make freemasonry the cause of genocide.
This is an important thing that people often forget when discussing conspiracy theories: conspiracy theories require allegations of a *secret* cabal of *malicious actors*, not just a "handful of people". The controllers of capital or of a state are not a secret group: many stay out of the public eye, but it's not that hard to discover who they are if you dig a little. Lobbying groups are likewise not secret.
With that all said, Popper's point isn't that conspiracies never happen, or that groups like the Masons are entirely innocent, but that it's bad sociology to attribute the workings of social systems to a group of specific people with bad intentions. Conspiracies do exist in real life, but they are under the purview of history rather than sociology. Particular conspiracies need to be proven on their own (that's the history part), but the mere fact that conspiracies occur does not imply that conspiracies play a major role in how society operates on a day-to-day basis (the sociology part).
For example, capitalism, as a social system, does not depend on specific individual people to keep functioning. It requires social roles of capitalist and worker. The system doesn't care who fills these roles. A conspiracy theory looks at persons and groups, not systemic roles: a conspiracy analysis of capitalism says capitalism is unfair because of *who* wields the power (often the Masons, Jews, Catholics, bankers, "big companies" in toto, or whoever), rather than because of the nature of the capitalist-worker relationship itself.
because they own you...
Yes, it 100% does. Modern liberals play dumb and subterfuge over this to protect those exact systems and institutions of power; they're either useful idiots or playing defense for the system, with often a level of overlap between. Its all power politics skulldrudgery to cover up the cabal of elites behind western power structures.
As we know, Karl R. Popper's concept of the conspiracy theory of society is expounded in his book Conjectures and Refutations. As I have understood, this video outlines only the 4th section of the book concerning this concept. In the 16th section, part 7, there is Popper's important argument to be analized: Popper asserts here that conspiracies do not change the character of social life, and if no more conspiracies were arranged, society would essentially face the same problems that it always has. Is this argument correct? How can a negative influence not change the character of social life if society has improved its life due to pertinent social events and endeavour? In such a case, social life will become worse again.
At first I thought Occam's Razor.
But really it's more of an attribution error?
Powerful people's actions are all powerful ignoring the culmination of all those around them.
If you want more on that, check out David Coady's "conspiracy theories: the philosophical debates"
Perhaps conspiracies should be viewed within their temporal horizon and fears regarding the window of opportunity to alter future events. Take for example Hitler's theory of shrinking markets and his beliefs regarding Malthusian scarcity. A cabal of conspirators is not necessary for the development of a conspiracy theory: events themselves can conspire and our beliefs about the shaping of events.
"That marginalized group" seems to have quite some power over politics, banking, Hollywood, mainstream media, academia, hedge funds, social networks, big tech corporations... We saw how Kanye West, the richest black man in history was left without a bank account at JP Morgan and his Adidas contract for just an interview. You are attempting some serious gaslighting here!
Your lectures give me an unprecedented clarity.
If we subtract all the 'lizard people' and comparable conspiracy theories, conspiracy theorists are mostly people who don't have all the necessary information of the 'object', and who construct the structures, processes and motivations somewhat off the mark, some of them sticking too strongly in their favorite theories when additional and more accurate information comes around.
Hence we are all to some extent 'conspiracy theorists', it all depends on who is looking at who, from what position, and with what knowledge. E.g. I may know more about politics than a average person, but if a senator with 40 years of 'rubber hits road' -insider knowledge of politics listens to my theories about politics, he may say something like, "That is too theoretical and vague. In real life politics functions this and that way ..." If the senator so pleases and he has the backing of the 'information megaphones', he could stigmatize me to be a 'conspiracy theorist' with some justification, like you and other political non-insiders. Also, when the information of 'conspiracy theorists' gets too accurate and/or truthful, and it is akward for the said senator, he may pull the protective 'conspiracy theorist' -stigmatization from his sleeve. On the balance it is important for the 'conspiracy theorists' to understand that their theories indeed are often lacking, flawed and gratuitously hostile to the point of stupid. If you e.g. think that you have become an expert of politics, economics and society by reading 2 - 3 months of seedy and "secret knowledge" -containing websites, then we can safely say that your theories are erroneous from the get go. "Secret knowledge" is mostly ----> blind men groping in the dark, reflects the conjectures of those who don't know and understand enough. And if you are indeed right about 50%, but the other 50% is nonsense, then your theory is wrong / too wrong.
There are much more errors and inaccuracies than accurate truths, and mostly people miss the mark at least to some extent, but if 'conspiracy theorists' are of the 'developing and capable enough' -sort, they are like heat seeking missiles, who gets closer and closer to the truth as time passes. From the top-down, that kind of accuracy and knowledge of central real life societal and political scenes is mostly seen as problematic, so in addition to stigmatizations, truths are protected by e.g. information overload + non-confirmation of truths by the people in higher or significant network node positions. The former is mostly a non-planned product of technological development, the latter is at partly planned and partly evolved feature of public conversation. 'The little people' may collect plenty of accurate or fairly accurate information, and generate relatively many of good theories, but they rarely, if ever get confirmation from top-down publicly that with this or that theory they have indeed 'hit the mark'. Often the right and wrong theories of 'the little people' are equally maligned, dismissed, sidetracked or ignored by the media etc., so the 'the little people' stay confused, uncertain and hyperactive, perhaps reaching the point of hyper-analysis, which leads in effect to analysis paralysis. 'The little person' may have been right about certain political-economic constellation two years ago, but he never got confirmation about it, so he felt the need for more and more analyzing, developing new and newer theories, and now he is again safely in theoretical La-La-land, grasping at wrong theories, drowning in information overload and possible truths, no way of knowing where to (relatively) stay.
Anyone who thinks that there are trillionaires who get together and attempt to influence events in their favor is a lunatic.
Word
@@KONYLOVESKIDS Oligarchs' interests are convergent. On the important issues concerning the conditions that sustain them, they are in agreement. This is natural and requires little co-ordination of the kind you describe.
What about Peter Dale Scott, Alfred W. McCoy, and others in the emerging field of parapolitics, a.k.a. 'deep politics'? How about David Ray Griffin? Also, Jack Bratich's work on Conspiracy Panics.
Sounds like an a) apologetic way of saying 'only the conspiracies I subscribe to are factual'. Your example of (an overreaching conspiracy I presume) 'lizard people' reminds me of the hordes of people laughing at that as well as flatearthers all the while subscribing and wholeheartedly believing in other conspiracies they deem as true and valid due to differing reasons or b) a very Derridean way of saying no information comes across in the fully intended and accurate manner. A lack of knowledge does not automatically constitute a conspiracy imho
I love the flag behind you! What's the meaning behind it?
Are you doing PHD in philosophy?
Wait, are you calling Marx's analysis a conspiracy theory?
Hi there FB, I watch all of David's videos and get quite a bit out of them, but his weakness is communism. Compared to his usual high level of analysis, his anticommunism - although possibly well-considered? - comes out in asides no more substantive than the smears one hears everywhere, all the time, in the anticommunist West. David has hinted that there are other, much better alternatives to capitalism, but what those might be for him, I cannot say.
Aside from that, David is the best introductory source for continental philosophy on the Internet. Although many of the philosophers he covers have roots in Marx, he treats them all fairly well.
My critiques of Marxism aren't my weakness. In fact, based on how many "Marxists" can't deal with them, they seem to be my strength ☺️
@@TheoryPhilosophy Marx hardly had any suggestions about alternatives to capitalism. But if his analysis of capitalism can be faulted substantively, it would be of immense value. I've heard some criticisms but not much critique, unfortunately.
7:00 yeesh
Hello! I love this! I host a 3rd party talk show. I also have a philosophy degree, and have studied much of what you discussed. I'd love to have you on the show.
Lenin, a conspirator. OK, let's say that is true. In the same sense one could say that James Madison was a conspirator.
But Lenin, an adherent or promoter of conspiracy theories? Really?
PS Perhaps David is just relaying Popper's contention that Lenin was a conspiracy theorist? Popper looks worse and worse as the capitalist world devolves! The next Popper paper to cover would be "The Poverty of Historicism."
Yes, these are Popper's arguments (weird I even need to say it tho) :/
@@TheoryPhilosophy Somewhat perhaps! But you will, as often as is appropriate, pause to mention where an idea seems odd or objectionable to you. Very creditably so, I should say.
Poverty of Historicism next please!
@@numbersix8919 wait that's the same as the poverty of history right? I was thinking my next Marx text would be 18th brumaire
@@TheoryPhilosophy I'll take the Marx please.
The Popper paper is "The Poverty of Historicism" and attempts to undermine Marx's Hegelianism.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Yes please do The 18th Brumaire 👏
Is there actually an article that Popper wrote with this title, or are these ideas gleaned from Popper's 'Conjectures and Refutations?' Near the end of Chapter 4 in a footnote, Popper surprisingly says about Karl Marx,
"3 In the discussion which followed the lecture, I was criticized for rejecting the conspiracy theory, and it was
asserted that Karl Marx had revealed the tremendous importance of the capitalist conspiracy for the
understanding of society. In my reply I said that I should have mentioned my indebtedness to Marx, who was
one of the first critics of the conspiracy theory, and one of the first to analyse the unintended
consequences of the voluntary actions of people acting in certain social situations. Marx said quite definitely and
clearly that the capitalist is as much caught in the network of the social situation (or the 'social system') as is the
worker; that the capitalist cannot help acting in the way he does: he is as unfree as the worker, and the results of
his actions are largely unintended. But the truly scientific approach of Marx has been forgotten by his latter-day
followers, the Vulgar Marxists, who have put forward a popular conspiracy theory of society which is no better
than Goebbels' myth of the Learned Elders of Zion."
Marx initial foray was to criticize the 'conspiracy of landlords,' a feudal holdover still prominent today.
cameras looking nice today!
Great video. Where can I find this essay?
Let's have all of us youtube commenters conspire to determine whether or not David will have a good day 😁
The Open Conspiracy and its Enemies, Vol. I: I Smell Poo Poo, K. R. Pooper, 1945, University of Anglo Bullshit
Vol II: High Tide in the Water Closet
Your reaction conveys much about your inability to use reason 😂
@@tonefilter9480 found the sorosite
@@noneya313 found the Qnut
I am thankful to Popper for some of his contributions to quantum theory, but when it comes to politics I think he just completely missed the mark sometimes. Of course, he is right on this point here, but he failed to acknowledge that capitalist society is not a free society and that there are very real and deep power differences therein.
I think I was unfair to Popper a bit because he says, albeit only fleetingly, that he is indebted to Marx in this text.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Yes, but he also seemed to have equated Lenin with Hitler and seemed to have been rather anti-communist.
@@sirmclovin9184 I'll leave it up to you to read it then to give you the full picture. (But I tend to agree)
@@ultravioletiris6241 This comment is from a right libertarian if I ever was one.
@@ultravioletiris6241 I won't stoop to making any personal criticisms of David, but I would be very happy indeed to hear some substantive criticisms of Marxism, rather than snarky asides, half-truths, and infamous distortions.
But seeing someone so normally careful emitting Tourette-like slurs at any allusion to Marx does confirm my conviction that anticommunism per se is a mental disorder similar to antisemitism or racism.
David also has a video on this channel dealing with Jack Bratich's concept of Conspiracy Panics. (See Bratich's book of that title.) ruclips.net/video/MAtsExw_AYc/видео.html
Does Popper's position on conspiracy theories reflect conspiracy panic? It's a question worth asking.
Now, what about the political work of Peter Dale Scott, Alfred W. McCoy, and others in the emerging field of parapolitics (a.k.a. 'deep politics') and it's reception? How about David Ray Griffin?
You should check out Guy Debord’s second book Comments on the society of the Spectacle. It has a lot to see about the role of disinformation in capitalist society
Promo sm 🙌
Popper with that desperate lib cope of "Marxist analysis is also a conspiracy theory because I refuse to read Marx, much less understand him".
It's a pity that the work doesn't go in the direction the title made me think it did (analyzing attribution to society itself as a form of conspiratorial thought). That would have been a lot more interesting as a set of ideas.
lol