Link for donation: paypal.me/sankymudiar Guys, we want to work full-time on this. If your wallet allows please drop us some support. We prefer the PayPal method since we don't lose half of the money , but you can also give us a super chat. If you are a large donor, we would obviously get in touch with you to give something back if we can. But if you can't no worries. Please like, share, and subscribe . That means a lot already.
Great conversation. As someone who was quite fascinated with Zizek at one time - I can't stand the guy anymore and Professor Rockhill's critique validates my feelings. Thank you!
His attack is totally ad hominem.... Nothing academic... I am quite sure he won't be able to read his works if he has 100 years left in him. Hahahahha Attack on Hannah Arendt is totally bullshit.
Unfortunate choice of words to express any newfound negative opinions regarding Zizek. His analysis of the function of capitalism and the psychology of commodification is still useful for anyone surrounded by North American / Western European consumer culture. But his politics regarding the prescriptions for present engagement with the world at large would seem better served by a more nuanced analysis like Rockhill here provides. Maybe. There’s a lot to think about here with Rockhill.
Excellent memory as well as analysis. It's shameful a lot of self declared Marxists supported Imperialist war or attacks on poor countries ! 😡😡👍🌺👋💚🙏-bmd
@@malaydhar917 What!?! I believe history and facts prove that the USSR supported as many anti-imperialist nations as possible. Any materialism they gained was not independent capitalist expansion (selling armaments and pushing Neoliberalism Free-trade, but merely Russian state armaments to counter Western imperialism. But we called this communist takeover of their nations. But of of course our influence had nothing to do with exploitation and global/financial hegemony. lol
Russia was the core of the Soviet Union and it is now waging an imperialistic war to bring the now independent periphery back into exploitation. First they started with the internal periphery, namely Chechnya. Than they continued with a minor periphery, that was easy prey: Georgia. Now they try to bring back the biggest fish of their periphery under their yoke: Ukraine. The logic here is: when Ukraine has fallen, the rest will follow voluntarily, like Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirgistan, etc.
Damn, Professor Rockhill was just spot on the entire time. I have so many opinions about the contradictions of Western socialists, ESPECIALLY the ones who hold your feet to the fire to condemn China when most have never been, do not know Chinese history, and are quite racist and xenophobic in their feelings about the people of China and the products they produce with their labor. However, when it comes to critiquing their imperialist nations of origin, we MUST consider the complexities of history and search for even a thread of humanity to then hyper focus on to defend all other ongoing events at any point in time. The racism towards Russians felt understandable to me although I did not agree because I was born well after this long sordid Cold War history between my nation (the US) and the Russians and there is countless propaganda about Russia. I wrongfully have not defended the Russian govt. and let them be attacked (in conversation) many a time, just to avoid the social difficulty and definitely have felt like a coward for this. I only kept a redline when it came to generalizations about the Russian people or the movements to sanction them. But this is not fair to what matters to those people when they are NOT in a state of crisis. It's easy to just have a position of solidarity only when the people are in a state of serious crisis. It is like the one of those three conditions that was talked about in this discussion. For China, it has been far harder for me to "let things slide" when I hear particular statements. I believe this may be because I KNOW Chinese descendants, I use Chinese products, and I see China as a reflection of the future in many ways compared to how I imagine the Russian Federation today or the Soviet Union of the past in relation to the US. However it is PRECISELY the advancements China has now because of the vision of the opening up and reform period and it's long-lasting impact that can be seen in action today. It is PRECISELY that which makes me look TOWARDS China as a model instead of looking at them from the "head of the snake" of the Imperial Core from a position of sympathy from a distance. A sort of protection of the righteous and downtrodden as a form of seeking a moral high ground. I have found myself so disillusioned in the process of finding like-minded individuals. Every "socialist" you encounter in America who is not just a radical liberal trying to utilize socialist ideas to push for some personal gain in the form of some domestic policy in the US is just some pie-in-the-sky anarchist or libertarian who values the IDEA of freedom more than the actual process to achieve it. I resigned to the idea that they are just personally convinced that socialism is not possible in their lifetime WITHIN the US and so therefore, since they are liberalized and quite individualistic, they lose interest in fighting for others. And so I assumed this just manifested in them seeing socialist political discussion as an arena to showcase their personal intelligence, a sort of intellectual showcase where they want to have the most moral and pure positions so that they can easily defend them and look the most intellectual and "correct". As they don't actually see socialism as an achievable future for themselves and therefore immediately assume it is just utopian instead of an ever-moving, living, breathing project. And this has just honestly been extremely tiring. To have people whose first question is about violence and are somehow extremely anti-violence in any form without context however they live in the same nation as I which is the largest arms dealer in the world, has the most expansive military, and conducts violence at extremes domestically via their police forces which are getting increasingly militarized. These attacks about violence and these asks to condemn are so exhausting and then you begin to see these parallels with non-socialists. Others who have struggled all the same. You find that even Malcolm X was dealing with these critiques. And then you find solidarity in those who are fighting the underlying structure that produces the conditions that hurt us all. You find solidarity with Islamic militias and governments that have completely different aspirations for their peoples and black liberation movements that may not be socialist but you still find solidarity in the fight against colonization and imperialism. But this in itself feels like a contradiction. Like you are wrong for this even though it FEELS right and logically makes sense. These "court jesters" and their students have effectively created this self doubt in me and this insecurity. When you hear Professor Rockhill just bang on this perfect drum over and over for this full hour and through your questions it just feels like an intellectual pinata that just keeps doling out treat after treat with every difficult question. At some point you just wish he had 2 hours maybe even 3. Just hearing this discussion helped iron out a lot of my personal beliefs and difficulties and feel resolve again knowing that I am not alone, and there are much smarter individuals than I who can better articulate what I feel and have historical backing for their thoughts that can be explained, taught, and understood. And it definitely was much needed. Socialists should never feel like how I felt. Locked away moving in ever and ever smaller spaces and avoiding more and more dialogue and discussion. That is what THEY want, the imperialists and their most valuable assets, these students of the "court jesters". We should take note from Deng but in a social sense, socialism should be about OPENING UP and community and vibrant discussion. Not ultimatums and purity testing and moralizing. Why should our intellectual opponents be able to enjoy the social realm and discourse as we merely clutch at our inner closed circles spread out across the world building elitist thought of intellectual supremacy while practicing social austerity. Almost like a subversion of that "pauperism" Professor Rockhill was speaking of.
@@ghosthermes From my developing understanding of the Western tradition, I'd say that Domenico Losurdo and Michael Parenti are very good. Richard Wolff, Silvia Federici and Michael Hudson also provide interesting insights, however they don't necessarily engage explicitly with Marxist theory like Rockhill does.
Great interview. I am always energised by any discussion involving Gabriel. I have to say that I have become quite a “fan” of his. I certainly will read the English translation of Losurdo’s book, “Western Marxism …” that is edited by Garbriel. I’m currently reading the English translation of Losurdo’s book “Stalin …” by Iskra books. There is a free pdf version of the “Stalin” book that one can download. The “Western Marxism” book has a Kindle ebook version which I am hoping will be easier to read on my phone than the pdf “Stalin” version is. I really do think it important to offer electronic versions of any book at prices that all can afford. There are a couple of comments I have: Jyotishman made a very interesting observation that might be worthy of follow-up. That of the State in India is seen in a positive light. I have worked in Europe, the US, Taiwan and Australia and worked with many hundreds of scientists over the last forty plus years and never have I felt that the State in any of the Western countries I lived in were there a majority of the population that had a positive viewpoint of the State - that there was at best some suspicion towards any Government. Perhaps in the 70’s and 80’s one did have the feeling at least in Australia that a Government job was stable and reliable in terms of income. Today this guaranteed job stability in the academic sector at least has all but disappeared and I think there is real animosity and distrust by those employees in any Australian Government department to their bosses (employers). So it seems that the Indian situation is quite different which I think is really very interesting. I wonder what the Chinese think about their lot working in China or those that are in Vietnam for example. Of course one needs to take a dialectical approach and one cannot seriously reduce it to anecdotal experience like I am doing here. I fully concur just from my experience with Gabriel concerning Western academic elites and how they are cultivated through a type of “exchange value blackmail”. So I’m really interested to hear more from him regarding knowledge and technology transfer and property enclosure. Especially how this might differ in China. I have had quite a lot of interaction with scientists based in China. I actually don’t see a great deal of difference between how they conduct, and are rewarded for their research, than what is done in the West. And yet they are at least ten years ahead of the West I think in many scientific fields now. If you take for example the Nature index of the best 20 performing research organisations in the world for 2023: fifty-five percent are from mainland China (11/20), then a distant second at 20% is the US (4/20), then 10% Germany (2/20), and five percent each for France (1/20), Japan (1/20), and the UK(1/20). Twenty years ago it would be totally unthinkable that China would be in the top 20 of research institutions in the world. What is interesting is China’s ideas on Use value. I really do believe in the West we (as scientists) are predominantly concerned with the Me-(exchange) value only - the actual intellectual worth/use is simply given up to our Capitalist rulers through some magical (it seems to me at least) Intellectual property transfer - be it in the form of patents or other modes of property enclosures. Do they have something similar in China? I strongly suggest you interview Roland Boer as he would also be able to, I am sure discuss intellectual knowledge transfer in China and what the policy of this is. A group discussion between Roland and Gabriel would be truly amazing on the topic of intellectual property and its modes of enclosure in the West and China. Well done again for the excellent discussion and congratulations to you, Gabriel on bringing the English version of Losurdo's book to us.
Thanks for this introduction to Lasordo, seems like a very interesting and historically oriented way of approaching the idea of the evolution of capitalism.
It is awesome, enlightening video content. Much obliged for sharing. What is professor Rockhill opinion on Losurdo’s work on Stalin biography specifically ?
If you interview Norman Finkelstein again maybe you can ask him about it. I heard an interview with him once where he talked about how his parents loved Stalin and credited him with defeating Hitler/the Nazis.
Seems like he was WW ll leader, but he cynically carried out resistance, industrialization , any & all projects,Some say that he killed more Bolehevik revolutionaries than Tsar Nikolai ll & Admiral Kornilov. together.He acted in very contradictory situation,
Essentially what Rockwell says is an implicit justification of the gulags in Russia and the famine which came as a result of the cultural revolution, just as he accuses Arendt of implicitly justifying slavery. Both are essentially claiming that certain human losses were absolutely necessary in order for politics to “evolve”.
If the opening up of China is permitted and is part of the dialectic of socialism according to Losurdo and Rockwell, why are the countless European communist and socialist parties (eg Berlinguer’s communist party in Italy), which attempted to exist in the parliamentary systems of Europe but made concessions (I.e. endorsed gradual reform instead revolution) summarily dismissed?
I mean this in a comradely manner and respectful tone but around 44:32 about the “lunacy” comment. In America, historically the government has betrayed and legislated against unions/nonunionized workers/ communists EXTENSIVELY, and over generations, a severe distrust has been fomented in the American consciousness. We know whose interest this government serves and it’s not ours. Why do many here think the government is an enemy to the average person? Simple, because it acts like the enemy at nearly every turn. I don’t necessarily view it as “lunacy” but rather as a reflection of the conditions we are subjected to and a kind of self-preservation mechanism. ☭
Mao's cultural revolution is central to an understanding of the success of the Chinese experience that saw the end of Anglo-American unipolar world view (mindset). It is the role of the party over and above the people and the nation and ensured the party's dictation preventing its role of opposing the imperialist's propaganda of enticing the communists accepting their values. It got its full play during Deng, who was adamant in upholding the dictatorship of the Communist Party and debunking the Imperialist's mindset.
Besides, didn’t Marx write that the existence of the state led by the party was a temporary phase of passage to THE END OF THE STATE? The aim is for the producers, the working class, to own the means of production.
Gabriel Rockhill is the most recent sign of what Robert Pfaller called the ‘interpassivity’ of Western “leftists”: they like to be authentic through an Other who lives authentically on their behalf. Slovenia’s independence and willingness to join the European Union have unleashed in him a violent aggressiveness: he dismissed Zizek as a slave of global capital. All this because Rockhill’s interpassive game was disturbed, i.e., because Slovenes no longer behave in the way which would enable him to be authentic through them. In short, as Gilles Deleuze put it, ‘si vous êtes pris dans le rêve de l’autre, vous êtes foutu!‘ (‘If you’re trapped in the dream of the other, you’re fucked!’). Slovenes are trapped in Rockhill’s dream; they are expected to live according to it. Rockhill is the Catholic Church’s court jester and the Catholic Church is capitalism’s court jester. Rockhill is only a Catholic reactionary in Communist clothes. Rockhill just pays lip service to Marx and communism; he is working for the Catholic Church (i.e. the Villanova University: a private school in one of the poshest American suburbs; Rockhill’s students are almost all rich white boys) and the Catholic Church is a close and maybe the best ally of the CIA (and NATO). Rockhill has zero credibility: a fake leftist and a fake communist. His anti-capitalism is the same as the Catholic Church's anti-capitalism. The money he earns should rather be given to the Church’s victims of sex crimes instead of being used to attack Marxists and atheists like Zizek.
@@Ocinneade345 Related to this religion, Slavoj Zizek wrote: “Marx remains all too naïve, not only with regard to his idea of religion but with regard to different versions of the opium of the people. It is true that radical Islam is an exemplary case of religion as the opium of the people: a false confrontation with capitalist modernity which allows the Muslims to dwell in their ideological dream while their countries are ravaged by the effects of global capitalism - and exactly the same holds for Christian fundamentalism. However, there are today, in our Western world, two other versions of the opium of the people: the opium and the people. As the rise of populism demonstrates, the opium of the people is also “the people” itself, the fuzzy, populist dream destined to obfuscate our own antagonisms. And, last but not least, for many among us the opium of the people is opium itself, escape into drugs.” Slavoj Žižek, “Trump wants to end the opioid crisis. But what if he is himself its prime symptom?”, in Spectator, 5th March 2018
However, Utsa & Prabhat Patnaik agree +! Marx & Engels that capitalism started +’extreme violence, both domestic & foreign (paleo) colonialism, from 1500s 1600s.
There is something really important about lenins acount ofabour aristocracy i.e. the indigenous working class of the imperial core. How does that important observation mesh with the potential for global working class revolution; it seems to me that there exist clearly different interests between the working class of the core and the working class of the periphery. Thats a major problem for internationalism maybe unsurpassable.
theyt arent as stand of lviing of wrestern workign class is not that bettrer tan stand of lviing of any industrilsied coutnry. this is is simplicitsi worveivew whcih think of relative wealth of west is only due to exploaitoin of east and disrugards organisaional and tecnolgical superiroirty whcih manged them to acquire and kep that dominaion.west managed with patetic nuibmners of tropps and investment to conquer and maintin dominion on global south.why organistion and tech.There is reason why for exampoek in ww1 germany whcih hand limited colonial holdngs coudl take on france,uk and russia whcih held most of the world and compete with them quite effectively despite nubmerical and material disantatage while quinq china coudl not deal with half ass expeditionary forces. such ismplictitsc analisis and people which spout them is why usa dopmiante as its regulary understimated as enemy,.
Antonio Negri spent time in prison and 20 yrs in exile. What aristocracy are you talking about? The Italian State repressed and suppressed many important intellectuals in Italy, especially among the contributors to the quaderni rossi
I say Professor Rockhill … Lusordo’s most recent book you edited is a bit pricey at $90 for a hardcover for curious readers who want to learn about what you’re teaching here in this video. It’s a bit out of reach for most people and in this day and age I no longer trust digital media not to just disappear when it suits the owner of the technology of the digital book readers. For some years now I’ve decided that anything truly good is worth owning a physical hardcover copy to refer to again and again in future. And give to my kids. Anyway … this makes Lusordo a bit of a luxury item for someone whose days are too busy with responsibilities to be running around to libraries all the time like a school kid. Besides … the average town library is not prioritizing items by troublemakers and communists like Lusordo in any case. Even if they did … I’d rather keep my reading habits like that to myself these days. 😀
Panzieri, Tronti e Negri wrote exactly about analysing the articulation of power in the contemporary capitalist economic organisation. I am starting to think that you both have a static, Leninist/stalinist, view of Marxism. A bit anti historical
The absurd thing about this talk is this presumption of what i'd call the "logic of success"-- it's constantly announced that maoist and stalinist politics is "successful", and therefore it must be correct. It doesn't at all clarify the aim of a political critique and movement, but glorified various means or strategies as good in and of themselves. The absurdity though is that the Soviet Union was liquidated and China today is a capitalist state like any other that has no problem doing business with the USA. We don't just want abstract success or action for action's sake, but we want a particular critique to succeed. And the communist critique has not been realized in any of these left-nationalist movements, nor have they actually destroyed imperialism, let alone weakened it, as has been claimed for the last 80 years. So, one really has to draw a bitter conclusion: the real utopianism is this idea that nationalism is sone kind of bulwark against imperialism and a step towards socialism. Reality doesn't at all correspond to this conception. If success determines what is true and realistic, then the current balance of powers doesn't look so great for socialism.
This guy works for a prestigious university in the US. I am all for critique of any and all intellectuals but the self righteous vitriol and hypocrisy is astonishing.
It's not hypocrisy. While his employer is "prestigious" it is also Catholic. There is fair evidence that Catholic schools in the US, which I can also vouch for personally, allow more academic freedom of their teachers/professors. Even in the natural sciences. Secular "liberal" universities (public/private, liberal Protestant origins) would likely not even allow such a discourse Rockhill is engaging in let alone hire professors with a perspective which he articulates and that is really the crux of the matter. Not the "prestige" of the institution. Chewing gum and walking at the same time.
@@kyledrums I find that very hard to believe considering that the Catholic Church has historically been one of the staunchest opponents of communism and socialism the world over, and have collaborated with anyone and everyone who shared the same goal of wiping them out wherever they sprung up. Furthermore, my own personal experience (not that personal experience is worth very much at all) at public universities in New York has shown that Stalinist students, orthodox Marxist professors, and exponents of critical theory and cultural studies can and do exist side by side in American academia without any problems.
This discussion expresses the frustration I feel about the Western left intellectuals. They fight for progressive policies at home, but want to entrench Western capitalist hegemony in the world! And they complain about the insularity of the right but are so ignorant about non-Western experience of Western hegemony!
nasty ... also it's straight in the great tradition of lenin .. volumes in his collected works are probably filled with such kind of nasty rants about the SRs where krupskaya had to edit him or excuse his french every other sentence ... other than that it's clear he's perceiving žižek as a personal thread .. for obvious reasons .. as marx agrees with hegel that consciousness always begins from itself and it's own conditions .. maybe it should be considered if people are ready to organize and why so many are not ready .. and maybe they're diverted by their own material conditions first and foremost .. and blaming it on the jesters is useless ... but that's fine .. as noted .. lenin and marx and engels were often petty and acerbic themselves ..
I truly appreciate the views presented here. And we should learn from every source. I should read Lasordo for a better understanding of his critiques, but I believe that there might be some ignorance here about China's actual existing socialism (for lack of a better term), as well as ignorance of the anarchist and more libertarian socialist movements throughout history. There were and still are anarchist and libertarian socialist movements in the East and all over the world, and not necessarily derived of the Western Marxist or Western anarchist traditions. Although a Western anarchist sort of movement, there is at least one libertarian socialist movement that managed to organize itself into a coherent "state" of sorts (for lack of a better term) able to mobilize large numbers of people with an industrial capacity capable of sustaining large(ish) scale projects and coordinating armed defense. It didn't survive, but take a look at Revolutionary Catalonia (and Aragón). It is worth noting that a huge factor (but by no means the only factor) in its demise was the direct, violent interference by the Soviet union. Not saying it would have survived if the Soviets had played nice, but it sure as hell would have survived longer. And in any case offers a wonderful example of an alternative approach to achieving a socialist society that I think we all could learn from. What I am trying to say here is that I hope Lasordo isn't falling into the same trap he is avoiding. Also, with regard to China, though it has managed admirably to resist imperial domination, I would argue it is doing so in ways that crush class consciousness and completely remove the ability of workers to take the reins of government and work towards a socialist future. It has learned from the Soviets' mistakes, but it has not learned all of the lessons it could have, I believe. Grass-roots organizing and the formation of member-led labor unions that advocate and fight for the interests of workers are absolutely prohibited there, for example. I know that is a libertarian concept (a member-led union), but the ultimate goal is to empower the populace to govern in its own interests, no? The abolition of classes, no? I just fear the approach China has taken has ultimately made it even harder for development of socialism to continue than in other countries.
Conflating Negri with Zizek is like conflating Marx and the Pope. Pretty arrogant to divide all "Marxists" in just two camps at convenience and also extremely annoying to see how this campista guy seems to believe odious absurd things such as the idea that "labor aristocracy" is geographical (it is not and the global south also has at least some labor aristocracy and there is "lumpen" also in the developed colonializing Center). Worst is reversing everything in Marxism like a glove, especially Marx' forecasts and imagining that the "peasant" revolutions of the Periphery are what matters alone and that the proletariat of the Center won't be, as predicted by Marx, the one destinied to actually do the communist revolution. This is very mediocre post-Marxism, neo-Stalinism singing siren songs in favor of peripheral rising Capitalism (China's), almost as bad as the pseudo-Marxism of Zizek and the like.
I can’t believe this academic is a Stalin fanboy. Not only are the perils and risks of socialism are unbearably high, the supposed end state is abhorrent. It stifles individual rights and expression. Fundamentally socialism is contrary to human behaviour and prosperity. And no, you can’t blame fundamental human behaviours on unconscious socialisation under imperialist powers etc etc. That victimhood fantasy construct is a key ingredient of the conflict paradigm and resulting misery that socialism delivers to the masses. Marxist books should be plastered with health warnings on the outside like cigarette packets.
lol!!! Apparently you didn’t listen ( understand) much that was said here. Key: the initial growth of socialism out of western imperialism is and must be brutal to break the society away- as in the case of Russia. Total control had to be used otherwise the capitalist class, nations, banks and multinationals would reconquer their former spoils. Second: every socialist government attempt is always brutally suffocated by drastic western sanctions set to destroy their attempt. Witness Iran; Cuba; Venezuela. If that doesn’t work “freedom & democracy loving America will simply coup them or cause death and destruction ion their state, like Iraq and especially Libya (2011). 1:08:10
😂the zizek comment was AWESOME😂😅zizek supported the fasict trump in 2016 and he regularly supports NATO operations around the margins of the imperial core which he is part of, the liberal framework, he was a presidential candidate in the early nineties in Slovenia from the liberal democratic party which is purely capitalist party, therefore he is antisocialist. His speculation with Lacan is ludicrous😂 BC lacan work and method is absolutely antihistorical. And so on... I'm glad everyone sees him as a fool of the proimperial procapitalist academia class similar as the postmodernist and poststructuralist french saloon posers😂😅😅
Link for donation: paypal.me/sankymudiar
Guys, we want to work full-time on this. If your wallet allows please drop us some support. We prefer the PayPal method since we don't lose half of the money , but you can also give us a super chat. If you are a large donor, we would obviously get in touch with you to give something back if we can. But if you can't no worries. Please like, share, and subscribe . That means a lot already.
Great conversation. As someone who was quite fascinated with Zizek at one time - I can't stand the guy anymore and Professor Rockhill's critique validates my feelings. Thank you!
Yeah baby, that’s why we need academics: to validate our feelings.
His attack is totally ad hominem.... Nothing academic...
I am quite sure he won't be able to read his works if he has 100 years left in him. Hahahahha
Attack on Hannah Arendt is totally bullshit.
Unfortunate choice of words to express any newfound negative opinions regarding Zizek. His analysis of the function of capitalism and the psychology of commodification is still useful for anyone surrounded by North American / Western European consumer culture. But his politics regarding the prescriptions for present engagement with the world at large would seem better served by a more nuanced analysis like Rockhill here provides. Maybe. There’s a lot to think about here with Rockhill.
Excellent memory as well as analysis. It's shameful a lot of self declared Marxists supported Imperialist war or attacks on poor countries ! 😡😡👍🌺👋💚🙏-bmd
Thise re new versions if WW. l
rightwing of social democrats.
@@malaydhar917 What!?! I believe history and facts prove that the USSR supported as many anti-imperialist nations as possible. Any materialism they gained was not independent capitalist expansion (selling armaments and pushing Neoliberalism Free-trade, but merely Russian state armaments to counter Western imperialism. But we called this communist takeover of their nations. But of of course our influence had nothing to do with exploitation and global/financial hegemony. lol
Who? Which actual Marxists do this? The “self-declared” can include all kinds of bad-actors and their mischief and misinformation.
Indeed, one of the best talks by Professor Rockhill!
Russia was the core of the Soviet Union and it is now waging an imperialistic war to bring the now independent periphery back into exploitation. First they started with the internal periphery, namely Chechnya. Than they continued with a minor periphery, that was easy prey: Georgia. Now they try to bring back the biggest fish of their periphery under their yoke: Ukraine.
The logic here is: when Ukraine has fallen, the rest will follow voluntarily, like Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirgistan, etc.
Damn, Professor Rockhill was just spot on the entire time. I have so many opinions about the contradictions of Western socialists, ESPECIALLY the ones who hold your feet to the fire to condemn China when most have never been, do not know Chinese history, and are quite racist and xenophobic in their feelings about the people of China and the products they produce with their labor. However, when it comes to critiquing their imperialist nations of origin, we MUST consider the complexities of history and search for even a thread of humanity to then hyper focus on to defend all other ongoing events at any point in time.
The racism towards Russians felt understandable to me although I did not agree because I was born well after this long sordid Cold War history between my nation (the US) and the Russians and there is countless propaganda about Russia. I wrongfully have not defended the Russian govt. and let them be attacked (in conversation) many a time, just to avoid the social difficulty and definitely have felt like a coward for this. I only kept a redline when it came to generalizations about the Russian people or the movements to sanction them. But this is not fair to what matters to those people when they are NOT in a state of crisis. It's easy to just have a position of solidarity only when the people are in a state of serious crisis. It is like the one of those three conditions that was talked about in this discussion.
For China, it has been far harder for me to "let things slide" when I hear particular statements. I believe this may be because I KNOW Chinese descendants, I use Chinese products, and I see China as a reflection of the future in many ways compared to how I imagine the Russian Federation today or the Soviet Union of the past in relation to the US. However it is PRECISELY the advancements China has now because of the vision of the opening up and reform period and it's long-lasting impact that can be seen in action today. It is PRECISELY that which makes me look TOWARDS China as a model instead of looking at them from the "head of the snake" of the Imperial Core from a position of sympathy from a distance. A sort of protection of the righteous and downtrodden as a form of seeking a moral high ground.
I have found myself so disillusioned in the process of finding like-minded individuals. Every "socialist" you encounter in America who is not just a radical liberal trying to utilize socialist ideas to push for some personal gain in the form of some domestic policy in the US is just some pie-in-the-sky anarchist or libertarian who values the IDEA of freedom more than the actual process to achieve it. I resigned to the idea that they are just personally convinced that socialism is not possible in their lifetime WITHIN the US and so therefore, since they are liberalized and quite individualistic, they lose interest in fighting for others. And so I assumed this just manifested in them seeing socialist political discussion as an arena to showcase their personal intelligence, a sort of intellectual showcase where they want to have the most moral and pure positions so that they can easily defend them and look the most intellectual and "correct". As they don't actually see socialism as an achievable future for themselves and therefore immediately assume it is just utopian instead of an ever-moving, living, breathing project. And this has just honestly been extremely tiring. To have people whose first question is about violence and are somehow extremely anti-violence in any form without context however they live in the same nation as I which is the largest arms dealer in the world, has the most expansive military, and conducts violence at extremes domestically via their police forces which are getting increasingly militarized.
These attacks about violence and these asks to condemn are so exhausting and then you begin to see these parallels with non-socialists. Others who have struggled all the same. You find that even Malcolm X was dealing with these critiques. And then you find solidarity in those who are fighting the underlying structure that produces the conditions that hurt us all. You find solidarity with Islamic militias and governments that have completely different aspirations for their peoples and black liberation movements that may not be socialist but you still find solidarity in the fight against colonization and imperialism. But this in itself feels like a contradiction. Like you are wrong for this even though it FEELS right and logically makes sense. These "court jesters" and their students have effectively created this self doubt in me and this insecurity.
When you hear Professor Rockhill just bang on this perfect drum over and over for this full hour and through your questions it just feels like an intellectual pinata that just keeps doling out treat after treat with every difficult question. At some point you just wish he had 2 hours maybe even 3. Just hearing this discussion helped iron out a lot of my personal beliefs and difficulties and feel resolve again knowing that I am not alone, and there are much smarter individuals than I who can better articulate what I feel and have historical backing for their thoughts that can be explained, taught, and understood. And it definitely was much needed. Socialists should never feel like how I felt. Locked away moving in ever and ever smaller spaces and avoiding more and more dialogue and discussion. That is what THEY want, the imperialists and their most valuable assets, these students of the "court jesters". We should take note from Deng but in a social sense, socialism should be about OPENING UP and community and vibrant discussion. Not ultimatums and purity testing and moralizing. Why should our intellectual opponents be able to enjoy the social realm and discourse as we merely clutch at our inner closed circles spread out across the world building elitist thought of intellectual supremacy while practicing social austerity. Almost like a subversion of that "pauperism" Professor Rockhill was speaking of.
Socialism of practice versus a socialism of ideas is an interesting distinction.
It's so rare to find intellectuals in the West that ACTUALLY understand Dialectical Materialism. Stellar interview with an incredible guest.
Can you reccomend any others?
@@ghosthermes From my developing understanding of the Western tradition, I'd say that Domenico Losurdo and Michael Parenti are very good.
Richard Wolff, Silvia Federici and Michael Hudson also provide interesting insights, however they don't necessarily engage explicitly with Marxist theory like Rockhill does.
Thanks a lot for your work. Really a great coversation
Great interview. I am always energised by any discussion involving Gabriel. I have to say that I have become quite a “fan” of his.
I certainly will read the English translation of Losurdo’s book, “Western Marxism …” that is edited by Garbriel. I’m currently reading the English translation of Losurdo’s book “Stalin …” by Iskra books. There is a free pdf version of the “Stalin” book that one can download. The “Western Marxism” book has a Kindle ebook version which I am hoping will be easier to read on my phone than the pdf “Stalin” version is. I really do think it important to offer electronic versions of any book at prices that all can afford.
There are a couple of comments I have: Jyotishman made a very interesting observation that might be worthy of follow-up. That of the State in India is seen in a positive light. I have worked in Europe, the US, Taiwan and Australia and worked with many hundreds of scientists over the last forty plus years and never have I felt that the State in any of the Western countries I lived in were there a majority of the population that had a positive viewpoint of the State - that there was at best some suspicion towards any Government. Perhaps in the 70’s and 80’s one did have the feeling at least in Australia that a Government job was stable and reliable in terms of income. Today this guaranteed job stability in the academic sector at least has all but disappeared and I think there is real animosity and distrust by those employees in any Australian Government department to their bosses (employers). So it seems that the Indian situation is quite different which I think is really very interesting. I wonder what the Chinese think about their lot working in China or those that are in Vietnam for example. Of course one needs to take a dialectical approach and one cannot seriously reduce it to anecdotal experience like I am doing here.
I fully concur just from my experience with Gabriel concerning Western academic elites and how they are cultivated through a type of “exchange value blackmail”. So I’m really interested to hear more from him regarding knowledge and technology transfer and property enclosure. Especially how this might differ in China. I have had quite a lot of interaction with scientists based in China. I actually don’t see a great deal of difference between how they conduct, and are rewarded for their research, than what is done in the West. And yet they are at least ten years ahead of the West I think in many scientific fields now. If you take for example the Nature index of the best 20 performing research organisations in the world for 2023: fifty-five percent are from mainland China (11/20), then a distant second at 20% is the US (4/20), then 10% Germany (2/20), and five percent each for France (1/20), Japan (1/20), and the UK(1/20). Twenty years ago it would be totally unthinkable that China would be in the top 20 of research institutions in the world. What is interesting is China’s ideas on Use value. I really do believe in the West we (as scientists) are predominantly concerned with the Me-(exchange) value only - the actual intellectual worth/use is simply given up to our Capitalist rulers through some magical (it seems to me at least) Intellectual property transfer - be it in the form of patents or other modes of property enclosures. Do they have something similar in China?
I strongly suggest you interview Roland Boer as he would also be able to, I am sure discuss intellectual knowledge transfer in China and what the policy of this is. A group discussion between Roland and Gabriel would be truly amazing on the topic of intellectual property and its modes of enclosure in the West and China.
Well done again for the excellent discussion and congratulations to you, Gabriel on bringing the English version of Losurdo's book to us.
Bellissima intervista. Saluti dall'Italia!
Thanks for this introduction to Lasordo, seems like a very interesting and historically oriented way of approaching the idea of the evolution of capitalism.
Glad that you liked it. It is helpful in many cases to understand capitalism especially China.
Incredibly refreshing contrast to the super capitalism speaker at Arab Con day 2 going on right now. ❤ you guys
You there? Great
@@IndiaGlobalLeft Just virtually
Just ordered the book last night. Looking forward to reading it.
what is the name of the book
Great show-I have come to same conclusion about "American" left-especially Trots.
It is awesome, enlightening video content. Much obliged for sharing.
What is professor Rockhill opinion on Losurdo’s work on Stalin biography specifically ?
Great program, great guest
Great video, as a brazilian I might say I agree 100% with the core of the video. Anti capitalist struggle is the anti-imperialist struggle.
Fantastic Interview! Looking forward to reading the book myself!
Thanks so much. It's good to learn of good scholarship and I like learning from the Indian socialists.
You have very clearly articulated the revolutionary position that any Communist party should adopt, irrespective of East or West.
Or even
just progressive.
The only thing more irritating about Zizek's slang is his stance on the existed and existing Socialist countries.
this is intriguing
Very good, a very important and vital conversation that needs to be had throughout the serious western Left
If you interview Norman Finkelstein again maybe you can ask him about it. I heard an interview with him once where he talked about how his parents loved Stalin and credited him with defeating Hitler/the Nazis.
Seems like he was WW ll leader, but he cynically carried out resistance, industrialization , any & all projects,Some say
that he killed more Bolehevik revolutionaries than Tsar Nikolai ll
& Admiral Kornilov. together.He acted in very contradictory situation,
I always appreciate his analysis
Rockhill is an amazing talker. I could listen to him for hours.
Essentially what Rockwell says is an implicit justification of the gulags in Russia and the famine which came as a result of the cultural revolution, just as he accuses Arendt of implicitly justifying slavery. Both are essentially claiming that certain human losses were absolutely necessary in order for politics to “evolve”.
utilitariansim is prudent view of world.just its hdoud not be used to justify insane polices.
If the opening up of China is permitted and is part of the dialectic of socialism according to Losurdo and Rockwell, why are the countless European communist and socialist parties (eg Berlinguer’s communist party in Italy), which attempted to exist in the parliamentary systems of Europe but made concessions (I.e. endorsed gradual reform instead revolution) summarily dismissed?
Amazing author! Thank you.
Looking forward to this! Ordered the new book, but it’s not arrived yet.
Great Interview!
"The ruling ideas of every epoch are the ideas of the ruling class." - Karl Marx
Friedrich Engels already denounced equality of
poverty. He & Karl Marx wanted
highly productive industrial, worker- controlled economy,
siciety, polity, culture.
22:09 such a great point...
I mean this in a comradely manner and respectful tone but around 44:32 about the “lunacy” comment. In America, historically the government has betrayed and legislated against unions/nonunionized workers/ communists EXTENSIVELY, and over generations, a severe distrust has been fomented in the American consciousness. We know whose interest this government serves and it’s not ours. Why do many here think the government is an enemy to the average person? Simple, because it acts like the enemy at nearly every turn. I don’t necessarily view it as “lunacy” but rather as a reflection of the conditions we are subjected to and a kind of self-preservation mechanism. ☭
Great talk.
Mao's cultural revolution is central to an understanding of the success of the Chinese experience that saw the end of Anglo-American unipolar world view (mindset). It is the role of the party over and above the people and the nation and ensured the party's dictation preventing its role of opposing the imperialist's propaganda of enticing the communists accepting their values. It got its full play during Deng, who was adamant in upholding the dictatorship of the Communist Party and debunking the Imperialist's mindset.
Great one
👍
Besides, didn’t Marx write that the existence of the state led by the party was a temporary phase of passage to THE END OF THE STATE? The aim is for the producers, the working class, to own the means of production.
Gabriel Rockhill is the most recent sign of what Robert Pfaller called the ‘interpassivity’ of Western “leftists”: they like to be authentic through an Other who lives authentically on their behalf. Slovenia’s independence and willingness to join the European Union have unleashed in him a violent aggressiveness: he dismissed Zizek as a slave of global capital. All this because Rockhill’s interpassive game was disturbed, i.e., because Slovenes no longer behave in the way which would enable him to be authentic through them. In short, as Gilles Deleuze put it, ‘si vous êtes pris dans le rêve de l’autre, vous êtes foutu!‘ (‘If you’re trapped in the dream of the other, you’re fucked!’). Slovenes are trapped in Rockhill’s dream; they are expected to live according to it.
Rockhill is the Catholic Church’s court jester and the Catholic Church is capitalism’s court jester. Rockhill is only a Catholic reactionary in Communist clothes. Rockhill just pays lip service to Marx and communism; he is working for the Catholic Church (i.e. the Villanova University: a private school in one of the poshest American suburbs; Rockhill’s students are almost all rich white boys) and the Catholic Church is a close and maybe the best ally of the CIA (and NATO). Rockhill has zero credibility: a fake leftist and a fake communist. His anti-capitalism is the same as the Catholic Church's anti-capitalism. The money he earns should rather be given to the Church’s victims of sex crimes instead of being used to attack Marxists and atheists like Zizek.
Him being a Christian Makes sense.
@@Ocinneade345 Related to this religion, Slavoj Zizek wrote: “Marx remains all too naïve, not only with regard to his idea of religion but with regard to different versions of the opium of the people. It is true that radical Islam is an exemplary case of religion as the opium of the people: a false confrontation with capitalist modernity which allows the Muslims to dwell in their ideological dream while their countries are ravaged by the effects of global capitalism - and exactly the same holds for Christian fundamentalism. However, there are today, in our Western world, two other versions of the opium of the people: the opium and the people. As the rise of populism demonstrates, the opium of the people is also “the people” itself, the fuzzy, populist dream destined to obfuscate our own antagonisms. And, last but not least, for many among us the opium of the people is opium itself, escape into drugs.”
Slavoj Žižek, “Trump wants to end the opioid crisis. But what if he is himself its prime symptom?”, in Spectator, 5th March 2018
Be interesting to hear Grover furr on Stalin and his supposed crimes.
However, Utsa & Prabhat Patnaik
agree +! Marx & Engels that capitalism started +’extreme violence, both domestic & foreign
(paleo) colonialism, from 1500s 1600s.
Of course if you are in a workers union you don't want people to think you are from the capitalist state.
There is something really important about lenins acount ofabour aristocracy i.e. the indigenous working class of the imperial core. How does that important observation mesh with the potential for global working class revolution; it seems to me that there exist clearly different interests between the working class of the core and the working class of the periphery. Thats a major problem for internationalism maybe unsurpassable.
theyt arent as stand of lviing of wrestern workign class is not that bettrer tan stand of lviing of any industrilsied coutnry.
this is is simplicitsi worveivew whcih think of relative wealth of west is only due to exploaitoin of east and disrugards organisaional and tecnolgical superiroirty whcih manged them to acquire and kep that dominaion.west managed with patetic nuibmners of tropps and investment to conquer and maintin dominion on global south.why organistion and tech.There is reason why for exampoek in ww1 germany whcih hand limited colonial holdngs coudl take on france,uk and russia whcih held most of the world and compete with them quite effectively despite nubmerical and material disantatage while quinq china coudl not deal with half ass expeditionary forces.
such ismplictitsc analisis and people which spout them is why usa dopmiante as its regulary understimated as enemy,.
Antonio Negri spent time in prison and 20 yrs in exile. What aristocracy are you talking about? The Italian State repressed and suppressed many important intellectuals in Italy, especially among the contributors to the quaderni rossi
I say Professor Rockhill … Lusordo’s most recent book you edited is a bit pricey at $90 for a hardcover for curious readers who want to learn about what you’re teaching here in this video. It’s a bit out of reach for most people and in this day and age I no longer trust digital media not to just disappear when it suits the owner of the technology of the digital book readers. For some years now I’ve decided that anything truly good is worth owning a physical hardcover copy to refer to again and again in future. And give to my kids.
Anyway … this makes Lusordo a bit of a luxury item for someone whose days are too busy with responsibilities to be running around to libraries all the time like a school kid. Besides … the average town library is not prioritizing items by troublemakers and communists like Lusordo in any case. Even if they did … I’d rather keep my reading habits like that to myself these days. 😀
36:40...yeah accessible as long as your social credit score is high enough to allow you to lo
Panzieri, Tronti e Negri wrote exactly about analysing the articulation of power in the contemporary capitalist economic organisation. I am starting to think that you both have a static, Leninist/stalinist, view of Marxism. A bit anti historical
The absurd thing about this talk is this presumption of what i'd call the "logic of success"-- it's constantly announced that maoist and stalinist politics is "successful", and therefore it must be correct. It doesn't at all clarify the aim of a political critique and movement, but glorified various means or strategies as good in and of themselves. The absurdity though is that the Soviet Union was liquidated and China today is a capitalist state like any other that has no problem doing business with the USA.
We don't just want abstract success or action for action's sake, but we want a particular critique to succeed. And the communist critique has not been realized in any of these left-nationalist movements, nor have they actually destroyed imperialism, let alone weakened it, as has been claimed for the last 80 years. So, one really has to draw a bitter conclusion: the real utopianism is this idea that nationalism is sone kind of bulwark against imperialism and a step towards socialism. Reality doesn't at all correspond to this conception.
If success determines what is true and realistic, then the current balance of powers doesn't look so great for socialism.
This guy works for a prestigious university in the US. I am all for critique of any and all intellectuals but the self righteous vitriol and hypocrisy is astonishing.
It's not hypocrisy. While his employer is "prestigious" it is also Catholic. There is fair evidence that Catholic schools in the US, which I can also vouch for personally, allow more academic freedom of their teachers/professors. Even in the natural sciences. Secular "liberal" universities (public/private, liberal Protestant origins) would likely not even allow such a discourse Rockhill is engaging in let alone hire professors with a perspective which he articulates and that is really the crux of the matter. Not the "prestige" of the institution. Chewing gum and walking at the same time.
@@kyledrums I find that very hard to believe considering that the Catholic Church has historically been one of the staunchest opponents of communism and socialism the world over, and have collaborated with anyone and everyone who shared the same goal of wiping them out wherever they sprung up. Furthermore, my own personal experience (not that personal experience is worth very much at all) at public universities in New York has shown that Stalinist students, orthodox Marxist professors, and exponents of critical theory and cultural studies can and do exist side by side in American academia without any problems.
33:42...so is it good or does it consistently need help from nations that aren't socialist
So if he can defend Stalin then he can also defend Hitler too😅
No, they were diametrically opposed to
@@Ocinneade345 this is even more funny to hear😂😂
Slavoj Zijek is a Trojan Horse..
This discussion expresses the frustration I feel about the Western left intellectuals. They fight for progressive policies at home, but want to entrench Western capitalist hegemony in the world! And they complain about the insularity of the right but are so ignorant about non-Western experience of Western hegemony!
This is usually just racist intellectual junk food from guys like Gabriel thornhill
Capitalism is materialism also.
The big names in Marxism are Hegel, Marx, and Lenin. These are the thinkers and philosophers.
Not Hegel
nasty ... also it's straight in the great tradition of lenin .. volumes in his collected works are probably filled with such kind of nasty rants about the SRs where krupskaya had to edit him or excuse his french every other sentence ...
other than that it's clear he's perceiving žižek as a personal thread .. for obvious reasons .. as marx agrees with hegel that consciousness always begins from itself and it's own conditions .. maybe it should be considered if people are ready to organize and why so many are not ready .. and maybe they're diverted by their own material conditions first and foremost .. and blaming it on the jesters is useless ... but that's fine .. as noted .. lenin and marx and engels were often petty and acerbic themselves ..
I truly appreciate the views presented here. And we should learn from every source. I should read Lasordo for a better understanding of his critiques, but I believe that there might be some ignorance here about China's actual existing socialism (for lack of a better term), as well as ignorance of the anarchist and more libertarian socialist movements throughout history. There were and still are anarchist and libertarian socialist movements in the East and all over the world, and not necessarily derived of the Western Marxist or Western anarchist traditions. Although a Western anarchist sort of movement, there is at least one libertarian socialist movement that managed to organize itself into a coherent "state" of sorts (for lack of a better term) able to mobilize large numbers of people with an industrial capacity capable of sustaining large(ish) scale projects and coordinating armed defense. It didn't survive, but take a look at Revolutionary Catalonia (and Aragón). It is worth noting that a huge factor (but by no means the only factor) in its demise was the direct, violent interference by the Soviet union. Not saying it would have survived if the Soviets had played nice, but it sure as hell would have survived longer. And in any case offers a wonderful example of an alternative approach to achieving a socialist society that I think we all could learn from. What I am trying to say here is that I hope Lasordo isn't falling into the same trap he is avoiding.
Also, with regard to China, though it has managed admirably to resist imperial domination, I would argue it is doing so in ways that crush class consciousness and completely remove the ability of workers to take the reins of government and work towards a socialist future. It has learned from the Soviets' mistakes, but it has not learned all of the lessons it could have, I believe. Grass-roots organizing and the formation of member-led labor unions that advocate and fight for the interests of workers are absolutely prohibited there, for example. I know that is a libertarian concept (a member-led union), but the ultimate goal is to empower the populace to govern in its own interests, no? The abolition of classes, no? I just fear the approach China has taken has ultimately made it even harder for development of socialism to continue than in other countries.
So we should prefer some rando anarchist statelet in Spain over the living example of China? Got it!
Please no! “who paid the pipers of western marxism” is such a bad title!!
Jesus Christ god forbid Žižek ever dies and Rockhill loses the entire basis of his career.
Conflating Negri with Zizek is like conflating Marx and the Pope. Pretty arrogant to divide all "Marxists" in just two camps at convenience and also extremely annoying to see how this campista guy seems to believe odious absurd things such as the idea that "labor aristocracy" is geographical (it is not and the global south also has at least some labor aristocracy and there is "lumpen" also in the developed colonializing Center). Worst is reversing everything in Marxism like a glove, especially Marx' forecasts and imagining that the "peasant" revolutions of the Periphery are what matters alone and that the proletariat of the Center won't be, as predicted by Marx, the one destinied to actually do the communist revolution.
This is very mediocre post-Marxism, neo-Stalinism singing siren songs in favor of peripheral rising Capitalism (China's), almost as bad as the pseudo-Marxism of Zizek and the like.
Rockhill shows his stalinist colors
🤡
Every single piece of technology that you use right now everyday was invented in America. A free-market captialist system. That's not a coincidence.
Stalin was a monster tyrant. This is not a difficult morally. It's sick that this intellectual is defending Stalin. Really sickening
What Marxism? You are high.
The first step is to formulate a question. We are proud of the progress you are making.
@@user-ev7vh2is6b that squiggly thing after marxism indicates a question. your progress is lacking, but answer that..
I can’t believe this academic is a Stalin fanboy. Not only are the perils and risks of socialism are unbearably high, the supposed end state is abhorrent. It stifles individual rights and expression.
Fundamentally socialism is contrary to human behaviour and prosperity. And no, you can’t blame fundamental human behaviours on unconscious socialisation under imperialist powers etc etc. That victimhood fantasy construct is a key ingredient of the conflict paradigm and resulting misery that socialism delivers to the masses.
Marxist books should be plastered with health warnings on the outside like cigarette packets.
Please read a book.
The individual right to express myself by getting my comment deleted by a an automated robot created by a billion dollar corporation.
lol!!! Apparently you didn’t listen ( understand) much that was said here. Key: the initial growth of socialism out of western imperialism is and must be brutal to break the society away- as in the case of Russia. Total control had to be used otherwise the capitalist class, nations, banks and multinationals would reconquer their former spoils.
Second: every socialist government attempt is always brutally suffocated by drastic western sanctions set to destroy their attempt. Witness Iran; Cuba; Venezuela. If that doesn’t work “freedom & democracy loving America will simply coup them or cause death and destruction ion their state, like Iraq and especially Libya (2011). 1:08:10
@@marting5308 That is the problem: I have.
that is the problem, you didnt
😂the zizek comment was AWESOME😂😅zizek supported the fasict trump in 2016 and he regularly supports NATO operations around the margins of the imperial core which he is part of, the liberal framework, he was a presidential candidate in the early nineties in Slovenia from the liberal democratic party which is purely capitalist party, therefore he is antisocialist. His speculation with Lacan is ludicrous😂 BC lacan work and method is absolutely antihistorical. And so on... I'm glad everyone sees him as a fool of the proimperial procapitalist academia class similar as the postmodernist and poststructuralist french saloon posers😂😅😅