Lessons from the Intellectual Success of Marxism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- by Nikos Sotirakopoulos
Recorded live as part of AynRandCon Europe 2024 in Amsterdam.
Visit events.aynrand... for more information.
Subscribe to ARI’s RUclips channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
"What Marx accomplished was to produce such a comprehensive, dramatic, and fascinating vision that it could withstand innumerable empirical contradictions, logical refutations, and moral revulsions at its effects. The Marxian vision took the overwhelming complexity of the real world and made the parts fall into place, in a way that was intellectually exhilarating and conferred such a sense of superiority that opponents could simply be labelled and dismissed as moral lepers or blind reactionaries. Marxism was - and remains - a mighty instrument for the acquisition and maintenance of political power."
- Thomas Sowell
Where did Sowell write this? I would love to read the rest of it.
@@hanh3000 This is mainline Sowell, who is of course a conservative.
@@TheWhitehiker I know who Sowell is and what he’s about. But specifically I want to know where he wrote the quote above. Is it from one of his 50 books or one of his hundreds of articles he’s written.
@@hanh3000 Sure.
@@hanh3000 It's from Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, I believe.
Thankyou Nikos. from a Athenion observer with respect to your work.. καλη συνέχεια
Ευχαριστώ πολύ!
I look forward to future works of art that present man as a heroic being. You can see glimpses of this in limited series such as the Yellowstone prequel "1883". For a full court press, I recommend "Mr. Sunshine", on Netflix, which was produced in and for South Korea. Our hero is an escaped slave from Joseon who grows up in New York and returns as an ambassador in the US Navy. This historical drama depicts a Korea about to be subdued by Japan. What kind of life is worth fighting for?
Big fan of both of these
he is spot on. i, coming from a very strong communist state of india - kerala - know all the three elements of appeal that he describes. if you don't recognize the falsehood of the basic premise, the rest draws you to communism.
The basic premise leading to Marxism is that people didn't create the planet - capitalists agree with this of course, they just don't care how it undermines all their arguments, because they have religious beliefs about homesteading that can't be reasoned with.
Excellent talk Nikos!
Thank you!
A very excellent lecture, Nikos ! I'm looking forward to more in the future.
Thank you!
That is quite clear explanation of why Marxism is so appealing to the masses
Thank you!
The reason that capitalism cannot be used with altruism is because, under a proper capitalist system, nobody gets screwed and under a "proper" altruistic system EVERYONE gets the shaft
Being individualistic, Objectivsm is ideally suited for the heroic presentation of Man, so we should have an existential advantage
The only viable capitalism includes altruism because every life is a dice roll to some degree. It's ignorant to find yourself on the right side of that and to then claim that it's through merit alone. I just read a story about a doctor in her 30s getting killed by a car while biking. What if it had left her paralyzed instead? We should value hard-work and meritocratic systems, but we shouldn't ignore that they're always presenting an incomplete picture of the possibilities and outcomes that existed.
@@Pawnlust I shall take you at your workd. Your argument has no merit. Beyond that, please learn what altruism is before you say anything about it. It does not even figure in your "argument" one way or the other
@@Pawnlust Who says that in an uncoercd free market one wouldn't want to help those who suffer unjustly?
@@nikossotirakopoulos6876 If it had happened at scale, there wouldn't be government programs for it. After all, those were created mainly because it didn't happen. Even if people wanted to help, they wouldn't know every person in such a situation. That needs infrastructure. Occasional kindness is great, but it's not consistent or evenly distributed. Even today, many disabled people are essentially left to die on the street if they don't have family that can care for them. The government won't keep them alive. I read about it and the attitude of many is that "they want us to commit suicide."
@@Pawnlust If life is a constant emergency, then insurance company profit would be impossible. Life is not a lifeboat. Long-range planning is possible. Life is a risk, yes, but that must be accepted to live. The alternative is hiding under your bed, a mental hospital, a monastery or mindlessly obeying society or govt of people as mindless as you.
Fountainhead-ayn Rand; independence Atlas Shrugged-Ayn Rand; reason
Ethics Of Emergencies-Ayn Rand, in Virtue ....Of Selfishness
Marx promoted Capitalism (in a free unregulated competitive market). What he criticised was the inevitable corruption of Capitalism, so called Crony Capitalism (corporatism/fascism), the exact thing that we have today. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Where did Marx promote unregulated capitalism? Though at moments he was for more economic freedom (see the repeal of the corn laws), though for his own political reasons and not out of principle.
Corruption is only inevitable if your culture (and its underlying philosophy) is corrupt.
Actually q general strike is probably necessary in London from what I see. Respect for managing Kapital thrice - I bought all three volumes, it was too irritating to finish the first
This dude gets it! I love culture, but you have to wake up and separate art from politics ❤
>liberated those countries from colonialism
Some people liberated Africans from tribalism and then sold them into slavery.
Marxism is quasi-religious millenarism. That's the main reason of its endless vitality. Read Rothbard's history of economic thoughts, volume two.
Marxism is neither endless nor vital.
Nice to see you around
@@cryptoemcee I think it's closer to millenarianism, as the transition to communism is not supposed to be a peaceful one. It's more catastrophic. Like a violent revolution of sorts is what I always pictured.
@cryptoemcee re-reading your comment and I think that's what you said, actually. I thought you said millennialism at first.
Marx had a big beard that made him look like Santa Claus.
He was also a filthy antisemitic man and yet people world wide revere him like a Saint.
@@bigmouthstrikesagain4056antisemitism is the one thing the far left and far right agree on.
What a presentation. I think Nikkos is spot on with Intellectual curiosity being more prevalent and sexy on the left. There are people though that are trying to make capitalism sexy today. Check out Akira the Don. He makes great music with lyrics from profound thinkers. How to get Rich w/Naval Ravikant. Three albums of music promoting and laying out the foundation of why capitalism is good. Creates positive sum games while other systems tend to create zero sum games.
Thank you! I've spent hours and hour working out to the music creations of Akira the Don! I wish he also did a remix with an Objectivist...
We have an example how Socialism and Capitalism works in lock step with each other right in front of us and no one really notices it. Take the NFL. Arguably the most popular and successful sport in America. They use a socialist structure run by Capitalists. The league sets a salary cap for each team, requiring them to spend roughly the same amount on players each year.The NFL's draft system is similar to Karl Marx's idea of assigning players to teams based on their abilities and needs. The draft also punishes the strongest teams and rewards the weakest. The league equally divides TV revenues among the 32 franchises, regardless of individual team performance. The NFL protects the weakest teams. yet, all the players are wealthy and all the owners are Billionaires!
Some of these things also apply to the NBA. It's important though that 1) these measures be voluntary, 2) the goal is to make the product more attractive. So they are clearly not socialism.
@@nikossotirakopoulos6876 it's capitalism using socialist methods within the system. Yes, it's not forced but just like Social Security, there are ways to make it function if it is not the only system of government. My point is that, many systems can work together.
I get your point but the Capitalism we live under (Crony Capitalism) is just a mountain peak endhrouded in clouds, so we only see our mountain peak and misses out of seeing under the clouds the whole, vast Capitalism Mountain Range. A mountain range of abundant prosperity FOR ALL. 🖖
My professors were grey and bland compared to Nicos.
Amazing talk
Thank you!
I am glad that he was drawn into the movement by the social justice movement.
Eric Ambler was an excellent spy novelist w/communist heros.
Capitalism ideals are pretty sexy to me. Mutual interactions that benefit all involved. Positive sum games. If you’re not having a good interaction you can always go talk to someone else. Forced interaction for common good seems a lot less sexy.
Best viewpoint I've heard in a long time. 🖖👍🏻
Capitalism predicated on Georgism sounds sexy. Capitalism predicated on homesteading is not indicative of "mutual interactions that benefit all involved."
Nikos ❤❤!
The star trek of Gene Roddenberry
Is cool until you LIVE through it. I did.
Well said, sir.
Homesteading is still unjustified.
23:00 Lol Nikos, dont use Mr. Beast as an example. He is a complete grifter and he is pretty much a villain out of Rand's books.
The critics of Mr. Beast are examples of people hating the good for being good. Altruism does not produce a brotherhood of man, but louder calls for sacrifice and renunciation. It's a good example because he is well known, and people have probably noticed the complaints.
@@BalugaWhale37 Yes I understand, but there is plenty of new evidence shows that Mr. Beast is actually a complete scumbag who will say anything any go to nearly any length to manipulate his audience to give him money. People MAY hate him because they have a hatred of the good, but in reality he really does only cares about stuffing his pockets and its most of his videos are staged theatrics.
The point is not to defend Mr Beast. It is to point out the hypocricy of his leftist\altruist critics.
Altruism is overwhelmingly dominant, so of course Marxism had a high likelihood of being successful.
I found your RUclips channel. I watched your RUclips and noticed that your channel is having a lot of problems and your views are not increasing due to the SEO of your videos not being right. In a few days, I can solve this problem and increase the number of organic views. I would like to discuss this matter with you and look forward to your response.
Our question is not about Karl Marx, it's about atheism, such as socialism, evolution, Christians who violate Ten Commandments, Kant and Hegel's philosophy. Ayn Rand also believes atheism.
Success and Marxism in the same sentence HAHAHAHA
Nikos makes the mistake of failing to characterize Marx and Marxism properly. Marx certainly did not mean that his notion of socialism and communism would lead to totalitarianism. Therefore, the only proper definition of socialism”Marxism” is “Marxism Today” and not Leninist Marxism or Stalinism or National Socialism or American Republicanism. Nikos cherry picks various writes and periods of history as “Marxism” when all the events he mentions as proof of Marxist incompetence are actually instances of perverted communism, perverted and distorted socialism or outright autocratic totalitarianism.
Rand’s objection to Russia was Collectivism which she experienced as military oppression. Rand’s objection to American was ‘mixed economy’ - part privatized and part public or government services. Her rejection of anarchy (Rothbard) and libertarianism was that a minimal government is necessary. Her main idea in objectivism is individualism. Disingenuously, she portrays capitalism and individualism outside of the largest institutions and ideologies. ‘All for one and one for all,’ ‘for the greater good,’ and the division of labor where goods and services are produced by a sequence of activities, all interdependent, is anathema to her ethics. Rand considers altruism as ideological, an assumed belief, instead of as a natural epistemological disposition. Her reasoning is rational but she draws the wrong conclusion by triumphing individualism over altruism or the large group whether kinship or nation or humanity. This is a fine point because she does justify altruism in the context where the individual benefits.
Nikos fails to properly understand the relationship between of theory to practice and politics to economics to ideology. Marx did not predict or prophesize revolution in Russia, China or the Nazi form of fascism in Germany, Italy, Spain or even the US! A more charitable understanding of Marx’s expectations in history would be Weber’s concept of rationalization where the economic exploitation of the workers are minimized by democratic actions which were anti-slavery civil wars and anti-serf policies which he observed as a journalist. In contrast to Rand’s neoliberal understanding of the separation of government from capitalism, Marx demanded more democracy. This democratic spirit was appropriated by fascists through political and ideological processes, not economic ideals, and hijacked by communists through political military force - both constituting totalitarianism.
Marx was not a totalitarian and the Marxist intellectuals today are opposed and resisting capitalist neoliberal totalitarianism practiced by corporations.
Randians need to analyze both historical events and current events in terms of the intentions of Rand and Marx. Individualism and objectivist ethics must acknowledge normative imperatives from an ethical perspective and not dismiss exploitation as if macro-economic policies and practices are irrelevant. Marx identified economic exploitation in terms of capitalist profiteering which has been nothing but egregious since his time.
You may curtail any company’s profits at any time. Refuse to purchase their products. In a free market, a company without customers is dead in the water.
I am curious. How much would a businessman need to pay a worker in order to avoid any accusations of exploitation?
Fascism is an ideal, with it's source, race, nation and state transcending the indivdual and condemning the West and capitalism as materialist.
Homesteading is an ideal in which human rights are derivative of property rights. People in opposition think human rights are the fundamental, not property rights.
@@someonenotnoone Human rights incliude property rights. The right to life is basic.
Mans Rights-Ayn Rand, online
@@TeaParty1776 The right to life does not require property through homesteading. Rand specifically abhorred non-homesteading native Americans and equivocated them with wild animals, saying it was right and great to take over. Property rights were clearly of a more fundamental importance to her than human rights.
@@someonenotnoone Thats confused on many levels. Rand said that Indian culture had no recognition of the mind or rights. She recognized them as human, not animals. Rand explicitly, systematically, recognized the right to,life as the basic right. There is no evidence for your claim. See the Ayn Rand Lexicon, online.
@@TeaParty1776 She said living like them would be living like animals. She clearly implied that attacking them would be justified because they oppose homesteading - like animals (even though homesteading is exactly what territorial wild animals do).
I'll take her own words on the matter thanks. She was clearly profoundly ignorant, or she pretended to be when it came to advocating for homesteading. She took "didn't homestead" as "no recognition of the mind or rights." This is all about homesteading. I don't need a lexicon to see that.
Much better without Journo and Bayer. Time to liberate yourself from those who advocate- believe it or not- for government student loans and taking PPP. Outrageous.
41:50
The closest thing to Miss Rand today is Elon Musk.
No. Musk feels more like an Orren Boyle. He built his SpaceX and Tesla on large amounts of government grants and rebates. While his engineering principle of removing as much complexity from the rocket or car is impressive, his public timeline continues to be a series of broken promises. Both companies are solving a lot of very hard engineering problems, but he seems unwilling to be honest with us. There's no full self-driving which lives up to the marketing. The Starship program, which is behind schedule, will require 15 launches just to get to the Moon in what the Saturn V did in one. As a mixed-economy businessman, he is pretty dam good. We'll have to keep looking.
@@BalugaWhale37 Musks philosophy is all over the map. A socialist by his own claim, yet endlessly frustrated with high taxes and government meddling in his projects. Look up the Seal mating rocket sonic boom issue... and the worry that a rocket would land on a shark.
Don’t forget that Leonard Peikoff is still alive.
13:30 Nikos, Sergei Eisenstein and Dmitri Shostakovich - they weren't the product of socialism, but of the russian empire and 19 century. It is a very bad example if you tried to bring the topic of art of socialism. When socialism had been well established, they created ZERO! Total mediocrity!
But the point is not that communism provides fertile ground for great art. It is that it knew how to mobilize and use powerful art.