I'm a former liberal who left the left in 2020. Never in my life did I think I would ever vote for Trump/Republicans, but here I am. The transformation the left has gone through in the last 10-15 years (especially since 2020) has been horrifying to watch, this is no longer liberalism, this is a Maoist style cultural revolution.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Hicks has a great lecture on postmodernism and how a person finding themselves in a weak mental position will resent someone in a strong mental position, then the weak person will attribute virtue to their weakness. Then the strong is inherently evil and unjust compared to the resentful weakling. To me, this clicked as the core of this victim mentality ideology. They are weak people who demand power and authority under the guise of compassion - oftentimes, deluding themselves alongside everyone else.
Leftism: Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”. In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively). In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit. As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population. According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia). For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12). Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their births, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator! This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles. Fear not, for God is with you! P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡 N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬 In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
What do you do when reality shows your idea is bullcrap? A.) admit you were wrong B.) double down and ignore reality C.) triple down and create a philosophy that says objective reality isn’t real so anything can be true so you can ignore the disastrous results of your cult- i mean ideology.
@@steven2183 Exactly wrong, genius. Like I said, Crawl out from under your rock, wipe your teacher's slime from your ass and then read truthful history.
As someone on the moderate left, I really appreciate these videos. They help me understand how the far left has lost touch with reality and give me the information I need to stand up to the increasing movement to the left.
You posted your comment 3 years ago. I stopped voting democrat in 2012. I will never vote for a democrat in a very, very long time. I hope you are standing up to the increasing movement to the left. Boys are girls and girls are boys, and 32 genders is real science. I experienced communism in Cuba and Nicaragua. The progressive left is regressive. Go figure.
Left and right are words that barely mean anything anymore, at least in North America. The left is in favour of authoritarianism and censorship and the right is all about people being allowed to do what they want. The entire philosophy of liberalism is about how the individual matters. Today that's mostly on the right and it is seen as immoral by the left who favour group identities. Look with the pandemic brought us. The left is now on their knees before gigantic mega international corporations and especially scary is how they totally bought into big Pharma. 20 years ago nobody would've believed you if you would've said that the left would love mega corporations, and censorship, and a loss of individual freedom. That they would try to ensure that academia did not allow a diversity of opinion. That it was extraordinarily easy to lose your entire livelihood and be blacklisted for saying something that they deemed offensive. They are the modern version of the 1980s right wing "moral majority". It's the strangest thing ever.
@@matthewparlato5626 Check out Salerno's lectures on Marx vs marxism though. I would however take a certain point farther than him : One of the problems today is that both the extreme Left, the whole Right and the moderate Left tend to turn history on its head, and repeat something that actually is a pollution and myth from nazi times in Europe : That Marx was equivalent to what now is called marxism. This however is largely totally false. If you think about Engels, Rousseau, Weishaupt and Lenin mixed up in a pinpointed version where 1/3 of the body has the IQ of Donald Trump or an average AntiFa street grunt or QAnon people, Pride activists and Greta Thunb., you have marxism. Marx himself however was a pretty good intellectual, and pointed out a couple of very relevant issues for his time, some of them still relevant. (My place if I had been an american voter would be at maybe 80 percent Libertarian party, 10 percent Abe Lincoln republican and 10 percent JFK Democrat). Where Marx was somewhat unrealistic was believing that socialism plan economy could succeed and that the state could be abolished in the long run. Rather I would say that the political state ought to be abolished straight away and never return.
Stalin, Alistair Crowley and Trotsky were proto-modernism marxists, Valerie Solanas modernity age marxist, while flat earthers, Klaus Schwab and the Burning man festival community are postmodern marxists. Karl Marx was not an anthroposophical or theosophical marxist worth mentioning. And certainly not a China marxist.
Antonio Francesco Gramsci (died 1937). The Frankfurt School. The rise of popular existentialism. These theories, ideas, movements allowed the universities to reshape ideology. Popular culture has now embraced some of these ideas and weaponized them.
Luckily for you, @12HHoo, no one's around to demand that you back up your poppycock with examples. Nothing in the left's current demented landscape has anything to do with Gramsci, Frankfurt School or existentialism.
Socialism / Marxism has one overarching fatal flaw: human nature. The beauty of capitalism is that it requires cooperation. Economies that are transactional require mutual benefit, win/win. Requires that both sides benefit tho not necessarily equally. Enterprises not doing so are eventually crushed by the market. It's not perfect and needs corrections from time to time ( antitrust laws for example) but the data clearly shows it is the most successful "ism" in the history of mankind for productivity, innovation, standard of living, class mobility, and lifting countless millions out of poverty.
One of Adam Smith’s ideas is that individuals serve the public good more effectively when they serve their own self interest than when they claim to affect to trade for the public good. I have never seen an explanation or analysis for why but If this really is true then I think it is the only justification we need for why free market capitalism is better than socialism.
'The beauty of capitalism is that it requires cooperation'....what a crappy thought....Edifying a communist society requires even more cooperation but at least in theory for the benefit of all members of society..In a capitalist socio economic environment from cooperation is rather in many cases pure exploitation for the benefit of one or a few individuals....Look at the poverty around you in the USA and ....have a walk on the streets of Philadelphia....That horrible dark side of American capitalism scared even Aleksandr Soljenitsin.....
EXACTLY , one thing not discussed is how these systems work in a society that values individual freedom. ONLY capitalism works in such a society. So the question one has to ask themselves is how much do you value your freedom ?
Except capitalism has all these giant companies and billionaires pushing LGBT, feminism, and racial conflict on the working-class. Poverty is relative. A janitor today is richer than a medieval king because he has an iPhone. The end result of capitalism will be transhumanism. This is what the worship of rationality gives you. Read Heidegger’s Essay on Technology, Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, or Feyeraband’s Against Method. You can take the good and leave the bad from postmodernists.
I am a mechanical engineer. I once tried to pick up a copy of Capitalism, by Marx. In it, I found some of the most absurd formulas I had ever seen. It was like looking at the Drake Equation. The only reason this guy got popular was because he appealed to people's envy. But I don't understand how postmodernism grew out of Marxist thought. Because there is no real essence to postmodernism, it doesn't believe in essence. It started as a movement in art, not philosophy. So I think if you want to trace its roots, you look to art, not science or politics.
Marx’s main work was called “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy”, not “Capitalism” (as you claim). If you can’t read the title properly, it is no surprise you don’t understand the content. Then your ‘statement’ that Marx became popular only because he appealed to people’s envy really shows you made no effort. Being honest, and making an effort to understand what someone else is saying is key to acceptable academic debate. Is this how you conduct your studies in mechanical engineering?
@@doctormcgrailAfter LIVING the marxism and what marxists are whiling to do to impose their religion, I can say that the one that didn’t understood Marxism is you.
The best I ever encountered was by some psychologist in a popular book ( do not remember who ) that on a family level we are all communists - because we rely on each other help and can share resources and results if our work and be completely selfish; the larger the human group - the less it becomes relevant and workable! Then just add basic knowledge of history of Soviets , Cuba , China , Cambodia - and see what it brings when implemented on large scale … stupid idiots today believe that they discovered magic idea that end all problems- ignoring all that happened before ! Pretending that if you don’t share this delusion you want people to die in utter poverty because you are heartless… crazy times
Sit through any estate hearing and you'll find out that even at the smallest unit of society -- the family -- humans are not communistic by nature. They are benign autocracies or oligarchies, at best.
@amibrainwashed… For sure, an entitled millennial who was in dire poverty most of his entire life and would never have survived as long as he did without the financial assistance he received from Friedrich Engels.
@@chuckhall5347 Not true at all. There are a lot of reputable biographies of Marx. Find one and enlighten yourself. Marx wasn't a self-important egotist.
@@mkq77 Uhm. He was wrong, but sincere and did write 24 books. All wrong, but people were looking for solutions and he gave them one that forced everyone else to sit up and take notice. Might not have had trade unions if there wasn't the fear all those teamsters would come back from wars and use their guns against DC.
JesusFriedChrist The problem is that the new left has been over run with socialists. The moderate left are a Dying Breed now being called Nazi by the entire media industry, entertainment industry and academia which is serving to brainwash even more socialists in youth. Because of this we do see one good thing... moderate right and moderate left joining forces along with some small L libertarian types among the population of the Western World standing together who all seem to be at least standing together on free speech and trying as hard as possible to reveal the lies of Socialist claims concerning white supremacy around every corner.
pure capitalism lasted for almost 150 years......and led to the single greatest technological and quality of living boom in history this is historic fact....... in short youre an idiot and you absolutely support socialism you just dont know it....
Randy Miller -- You say, "the more free a market the better it does". Trump obviously disagrees with you: he is imposing tarriffs on many imported goods to 'protect American jobs'.
This critique of post modernism can be found throughout the history of knowledge and philosophy. Plato had a similar criticism of the sophists, Nietzsche has a passage in Gotzen-Dammerung that's also similar. Even the thinkers described as postmodernists and marxists (for example Ranciere and Foucault) critique this very development explicitly throughout their authorships. Marxism didn't create the postmodern left and abandoned reason, but if you believe it to be, and if you really want to believe it, "everything will be shaped to fit the political commitment", even if this commitment is blaming "our current epistemological crisis" on neo-marxists. But the crisis existed before both marxists, post modernists and Stephen Hicks.
Then you dive into the area of subjectivism (neoplatonism) vs realism/reason/objectivism. Platon himself (we use the greek original N in Scandinavia to his name) was both an objectivist and subjectivist in some sense.
In a very short version one could say that if you mix up catholic mysticism of the 1800s with totalitarian collectivism with liberal anarchism you get the Modernity movement in arts and culture philosophy. Post-modernism is the modernity movement mixed up with marxism, globalism and libertarianism. It is not only negative, but mostly it is rather dumb/anti-science and non-intellectual. Dr L Dunegan, ex KGB Bezmenov and the eagermost critics against the Burning man environment like that australian guy, were all correct that Moscow processes also re-started by Putin today (angled to manipulate also the Right into subjectivist populism like QAnon, Alex Jones, Trump community etc) = a major engine of how postmodernism spread out worldwide.
is it then really a crisis? or just a school of thought? also can we just appreciate the complete lack of societal awareness of starting out a lecture by saying inequality isnt increasing to problematic levels the way marx predicted during the decades when exactly that is happening?
The craziest people are those who believe that they have an answer to the world's problems. The world is chaotic, and no one can find an answer to that. Jesus Christ tried and the Jews crucified him for daring to challenge their crazy view of the world.
It is. It's based entirely on Nihilism. Which is meaningless. They do not like any meaning to be derived, because they know that a lot of the underlying truths behind the meanings will work against them. The difference is, you decide to overcome adversity, and they decide to capitalize on it.
Threaten to fire a Post-Modernist Professor who has tenure. I think you'll find that he's going to do a complete 180 and tell you that words and texts have meanings....very definite meanings. That he'll bring up in his lawsuit for wrongful dismissal and violation of contract. In other words...they're complete and total hypocrites. Derrida said it best. Post-Modernism is just a fun game to play with words and language. Often at the taxpayer's or student's expense.
Well, yes, wanting to have your cake and eat it to will always make one a hypocrite. It's entirely based on this. They want people to treat them well and read their minds without every attempting to give others the benefit of the doubt. They are their own worst enemy, and this will not change until they hurt themselves, unfortunately...or they get slapped back into reality like I did after college.
Well yes, because young people who grew up in middle class family and used to getting an allowance and Christmas presents, game consoles whatever... They're going to grow up wanting this to continue into their adult life. They're literally looking for government to play a parental role in their lives.
I once read a quote from a new mother in her late 20s in one of the Soviet republics and she said "Revolution is for the young. You can't fight a war while holding a baby".
@@docmemphisthat would be a noble pursuit, except corporatism is not their primary concern. Being taken care of by the government is a higher priority. I have a 22 year old that actually believes that she should have to work only a 20 hour week, and that the government should provide the balance of what she needs (or wants?). She has friends that feel this way, and they’re not alone in this, many in this age group think this way-robZ is right.
freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question. Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example. So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
socialism is idealist and capitalism is realist. it is the responsibility of every man to make it out of poverty on his own; not the government. every man for himself. freedom! liberty!
@@briancox9357Because we don't have a true free market capitalism nor do most of you understand that. Democracy and capitalism cannot coexist in large scale societies without the formation of monopolies that are nearly impossible to break down because of the lack of a free market.
@@briancox9357But capitalism has raised millions of people out of poverty or did you miss that part of the lecture? Postmodernism only became a thing when socialists realized the proletariat, who’d you would think would be its greatest champions, failed to adopt it.
@@januarysson5633 One third of the world's population today is dangerously underfed, and one fifth is on a starvation diet. Over one billion people don't have access to drinking water. How is that raising millions out of poverty? That only happened initially because of the industrial revolution. Today we are on the verge of the 4th industrial revolution and millions are descending back into poverty, especially the middle class. It's a myth that it's getting bigger. It's shrinking by leaps and bounds. And this is not be error, but by design.
18:44 - Yes, Postmodernism may have _begun_ as a crisis of faith. But for those who've never experienced this crisis but adopt postmodernism anyway, their commitment remains unexplained here.
Because crisis of faith does not mean someone losing faith on an individual level, but the general lack of faith in society in general constitutes a crisis of faith. People who are raised atheist and were never religious have a crisis of faith collectively because they don't really believe in anything.
@@robZzdaboss Most people in the US and the UK these days are atheists or simply "non-believers," but VERY FEW of them were raised that way. Most people over the age of forty were more-or-less raised in the Christian or Jewish faiths, yet they no longer believe in God.
The rise of Christianity was really a crisis of faith in Judaism... It created a new dogma that refused to submit to the Roman's - which was a huge dividing point in the Jewish community at the time.
@DieFlabbergast In my generation, I don't believe children growing up in Christian families were given a serious grounding in their faith. There was a loss of confidence in the teaching generation on account of an aggressive assault on Christianity from generations of intellectuals, starting in the so-called enlightenment and gathering influence in the 19th century. There is pushback to this: e.g. Pope John Paul II: Fides et Ratio.
Fascism was of the far Left. The start of the second world war was when the three self proclaimed socialist countries (working together) started invading neighbouring countries. These were the Germans, Russians and Italians. It is only because Socialist Germany betrayed and invaded socialist Russia that we don't admit WW2 was basically begun with socialist war mongering. Because the Fascist Socialists were defeated and the Bolshevik Socialists fought on the Allies winning side we are taught not think of Hitler's National Socialists as socialists. In the same way today we say the Jihadist Muslims fighting against us are not really Muslims at all. It is a propaganda.
Yes but Socialism requires authoritarianism in that it takes power unto itself and has to block other power structures from emerging. The Soviet Union of course is the prime example (Gulag Archipeligo) but so was Mussolini's left wing Fascista Party - "All within the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state". Authoritarianism is a left wing characteristic even if people are taught to think of this authoritarianism as being in the support of a greater good (which they all do).
Germans and italians were nationalist, not sotialists. Stupid comment. :D also after monarchical structutes were abolished in Europe, no wonder there was a mess looking for new forms of goverment
Also blaming socialism for ww2 is absurd :D don’t forget what’s really in power - money and recources. Nationalism speard way more then socialism did at those times after Napaleon wars and 1848, spring of nations. Germany was established recently and started to be a dominant power for in a fight for recources. Don’t forget why wars happen, dummie
@@abucsauthorathism legacy came from monarchical structures. When abolsihment of monarchy started the left and the right was formated during Revolution. The right was for a monarchical/authoritarian stucture and the left wanted liberty and equality for all, no one had a “divine” right to be better off. So don’t be a funny guy with your imaginative perspectives, you can try to read history books maybe
Marx was not an economist nor even a social scientist. He described bad situations we all know. He described good situations we all want. These he described as digmas. He revealed by his matrix of " history " that inevitably the bad situations would evolve into the good. It was wishful intellectual bunkum. Nothing happens in Marx except because Marx reveals it. Moreover he gave no mechanisms to realize his perfection of human mature, except the " dictatorship of the proletariat " The infantile assumption : everything will be ticketyboo when the workers are in charge, just as the infantile feminists believe everything will be ticketyboo when women are in charge. Communism pretends to be democratic but it is a religion that has the only true politucal/religious truth. So it must be a one party government ie a totalitarian dictatorship, and inevitably therefore corrupt. So foolish was this revelation of dogmas that Marxism/communism did not work. Desperately the communists invented the revisionist doctrine of " scientific socialism " ie thet tweaked it in a desperate effort to make it work, and failed.
@tonyfrench2574 Ignorance is bliss. Your ideas about Marx are inaccurate. Both Marx and Engels opposed dogmatism throughout their lives, never failing to criticize it when they observed it in others (same with utopianism). The dictatorship of the proletariat was never intended as more than a temporary transitional phase immediately following the revolution that would put the working class in control of the means of production. The ultimate goal was a classless society, meaning no group could have the power to act as an elite oppressing other classes. Not too shabby, 1 month ago
@@mkq77How do you feel about the critique that Marxism is inherently materialistic but humans aren’t solely materialist beings. With his proposed abolitions of not only religion, but the family unit, morality, and justice as well, how would a Marxist society be worthwhile if human happiness does not solely depend on materialism?
Here's the LIE about Marxism/Socialism. The structure is the same as Capitalism, the only difference is that you are just exchanging the word "upper" for "ruling" or the words "upper class" for "the Party". Wen the Sandinistas rolled into Managua when Somoza and his cronies fled the country, the first thing they did was not to help the poor, by distributing food, but to grab the luxurious houses that had been left behind. During the Chavez regime the exclusive Country Clubs were not "Nationalized" and opened to the general public, but rather, Chavez became a member of the clubs, just another of the upper class that the Marxists so despise (so they say).
Yes, fj, chase out all the people that have made your country the modern state it is, and gave it the maintenance that infrastructure needs (Class Envy) and then watch how it fall apart because they cannot do the required maintenance, and then blaming OTHERS for their own incompetence and the situation they are in. Case in point, SA's increasing lack of drinking water.
Well, yes, they aim at achieving an identical goal, the difference being mainly the methods used for it's accomplishment. The very capitalist-centered Jacob Schiff of Kuhn-Loeb bank of N.Y. financed much of the prefatory Bolshevik activity before 1917, this with shipped-off gold in the thousands of pounds and by hosting Trotsky, etc. (A film clip shot by the sons of the pianist Leopold Godowsky show him clearly accompanied by Trotsky on a balcony. It was shot in c.1915, and constitutes living picture evidence of his presence here, at that time.) "Global Amalgamated Inc." is THE ultimate goal of theirs. If events are viewed with this as kept in-mind, what is otherwise inscrutable will become not-so or less, at least. I am quite sure there is ONE desiring to sit in that corporation of ALL corporations director's chair. . : .
The Bank information doesn't surprise me as Marxism is Semitic Jewish creation and movement, and Marx and Trotsky were both Jews, so were most of the radicals in the 50s (Ginsberg with the Beats) and 60s (Hoffman with the Yippies, and Bill Ayers with Bernadine Dohrn with the Weather Underground).
Exactly these godless edgy marxists worshippers are so deep into their own bs never realized the capitalist system they've come to hate and loathe is what sustains the world as we know it and nothing is gonna change that. Hell even the first league of communist countries stopped adopting marxist-lennist-maoist economic policies. RUSSIA, CHINA, THE EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES THAT MADE UP THE WARSAW PACT ALL CURRENTLY UTILIZE FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES. Marxists dream into dissolving everything into a classless utopia, what a load of shite. Deep down these kinds of individuals hate themselves basically any who believes in a nihilistic life sapping doctrine goes along the logcial lines of "oh you poor oppressed soul, life is evil and doesnt want you to succeed the system that these white fat happy chauvanistic capitalist people is meant to grind you down to your knees in order to exploit your cheap labour, therefore we must burn down the system this is the only way we can achieve justice and happiness for us if we cant live up to the good life well lets just make everyone else miserable then". It might sound stupid and irrational but this abhorrent hole of morality in us have cannot be filled by the material pleasures of capitalism. We need strong values that resonates deep into our consciousness, all this anger, intolerance, and conflict is the result of what Nietszche called the death of God. Deeply enough this thought kept me awake for nights on end. I tried looking for answers in philosophy in order to tackle this void we are currently facing yet what has the philosophical thinkers of the 19th century lead to? The greatest mass genocide we have seen in history. Nazis misapplication of Nietszche's Ubermencsh ideology the next step of man's evolution, that the herd must be sacrificed for the birth of this great individual and lesser races ought to be sterilized. Marx and his intellectually lazy communist doctrine expousing life is basically a power struggle between the burgeousie vs proleteriat that everything in the past 2000 years of established human history is utter garbage, equipped with this mindset Stalin and Mao amassed killing at least 40 to 60 million of their own people not to mention all the other millions where a communist revolution took place. People are not ready for a world without God. Before we conducted ourselves according to the principles of heaven and hell, basically we are rewarded or punish for our actions, that there is an eternal moral and objective observer looking down to judge our daily lives. That is why philosophers like Kant wasnt so eager yet to dismiss the idea of God, for what then becomes our moral compass and bedrock of reason? Philosophers grant no answer to this dilemma. Without the concept of an eternal judge floating over the heavens human beings become unhinged in their actions everything is now up for grabs in the politically correct name of egalitarianism and equality of all. Jesus said I am the truth! Pontius Pilate says what is the truth? Consciousness is the truth "I think therefore I am" and life is the path of walking the uncertaintees of not knowing the whole truth. We dont boast to know universal truths but we do need a bedrock of knowledge in order to be grounded so we may not fall into the pit of nihilism where all actions are inevitably meaningless. We have power to better our lives, its only sad to see people have been convinced by envious persons that they are powerless. We are the products of the universe whether people interpret that scientifically or spiritually we do have agency over ourselves the universe gave us the power to act the worst thing for us to do is not utilize that will to live life.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Excellent elucidation of the subject and an incredibly engaging speaker, thank you. As someone who spent time on the left and then centre left now is thoroughly disillusioned by the modern left it became more and more clear to me that the modern left is utterly shallow. It exists for one reason seek and gain power, that is it. There is no substance behind their policies and arguments and they fell into fallacy and unfalsifiable claims abandoning science and fact years ago. They don't even believe their own arguments which is why they never feel authentic and never have great answers - its hard when you think your own policies are BS
Power always corrupts, and absolute power always corrupts absolutely. Less government control will always yield a less corrupt outcome. It's simple logic
Hierarchy is the issue, not power. If you put a lot of power into a large body of people who have it equally-distributed among them, you can get good results. It's when that power is given to one or few people that corruption is worst. If you strip government of all power instead of horizontalize it, other powers fill the void: capitalist powers, megacorporations. Then those corporations establish a government of _their_ choosing, and exploit the situation through both market and government mechanisms. That's roughly our situation today.
@@Disentropic1 Bingo. It's simply a lesser of two evils and depending on which lens you view history from and which events you cherry pick from you can pick anything as the lesser evil. The accumulation of power in the hands of the few is consistently the driving force for social revolution. At least since the rise of Rome.
Shame its missing here- a classic eg of someone putting a little truth in with a lot of bs reframing arguments in their favour ,and followed by ignorant and stupid people
2:15 "wise benevolent leaders who assess the economy and distribute resources"; and due to human nature, they will distribute resources in their own favor. So main difference from capitalism is - HOW those leaders become leaders. In capitalism, people prove themselves as business leaders by running successful businesses. Under socialism - people who excel at inner party politics.
Postmodernism was a response a period of human history that lacked a history or critical basis for itself which was modernism. Constructs were treated as reality, meaning there is nothing outside of them. A human nature was being defined with absolutely no basis outside of being dominantly accepted as true which is not to say that there is no value in those dominant beliefs but that they are not the nature of humans. The message of postmodernism was that humans have no nature. To think humans have a nature and to strive to live up to it - as if it weren’t our nature - is to live a simulation of reality. Where postmodernism went wrong was thinking there was something wrong with the beliefs and values of modern society instead of just saying, they aren’t the only ones
The interesting skip in every such secular argument is the decisive cultural aspect. The communist nations were committed to science and atheism. The capitalists were overwhelmingly Christian in worldview. And those latter contexts led to all of the most humanizing achievements and movements in the modern world, the trajectory and progress having begun several centuries before the Enlightenment, and Industrial and Scientific Revolutions, came along. Nonetheless, the Bolshevik Revolution obliterated all of it in the pursuit of a naturalistic, scientific, and religionless approach to moral society. Indeed, to this day, the communistic are the only purely secular societies ever to exist. Why does the cultural aspect matter? And why is it decisive? Because worldviews directly inform and shape morals and values. Now, consider the logical moral foundations and outcomes a purely naturalistic and secular worldview provides.... "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins Now, the main reason as to why all of the several communist governments have been so barbarically oppressive and have remained wholly unrepentant is laid bare.
I like his analogy of a ‘faith crisis’ for what the Postmodern Left became. In the analogy he presents two polar chooses - A) go with evidence & reason, or B) deny evidence and reason because it’s emotional gripping… but I think there is a third option and I wonder, if some on the Left, are trying to do this. The third option is AB together - recognizing that *some* of the things I thought about my conceptual ideal (Religion) do not seem to bare out with evidence & reason; yet, it’s possible that the ultimate ideal is still valid, just not perfectly structured or correctly understood / interpreted. Some of the basic premises of Marxism contain a truth even if the conclusions (ultimate outcomes) bore out. For example, in the Board game of Monopoly, a competitive game with finite resources - *every* game all the resources end up in the hands of one person. This is what Marx is pointing out; yet, it’s not what seems to play out in reality in the mono-structure (everything is ONE monopoly game). Instead, reality seems to be a multitude of Monopoly games where new games are entering all the time, some games are restarting, and some are dropping off / ending. The premise (that a self-interested competitive game with finite resources will end with one person winning all the resources) is TRUE but life is more complex as an enormous multitude of overlapping games that is dynamic in time means that you don’t see the ultimate outcome - life expressed as ONE game. Now, I think the AB option in a ‘faith crisis’ is not to necessarily choose A or B but rather try to integrate success A+B. This is true for philosophy but also for religion - too many people live and play in the world where it’s either ALL True or ALL False.
Why couldn’t Hicks explain what Marx said were the contradictions of capitalism that would lead to its downfall? Given we are living though the deepest crisis since the Great Depression it should be important to show Marx wasn’t right about the present. The policy of capitalist governments around the world to this crisis is austerity, police state measures and preparations for major war signal they have no progressive solution and this is driving a renewed interest in socialism. The identification of Stalinism with Marxism doesn’t bear scrutiny. Socialism-in-one-country was a rejection of Marx’s “workers of the world unite” which was the basis on which the October Revolution had been carried out. The transformation of the Stalinist bureaucracy into a counter-revolutionary force was completed in 1933 when it aided and abetted the rise to power of fascism in Germany, then insisted its policies had been correct. The Left Opposition, under Trotsky’s leadership, had fought to unite German workers against the danger of fascism, whereas the Stalinist’s called the social-democrats “social fascists” (i.e. no different from the Nazis) and their slogan was “First Hitler, then us.” The undermining of the Spanish Revolution and purges around the Moscow Trials from 1937 to 1938, when the Stalinists killed more Marxists than any regime in history, was the culmination of their crimes. The purges also involved the murder of up to 40,000 officers of the Red Army, including most of its top leadership, on false charge of conspiring with the Nazis to overthrow the regime. This paved the way for the Molotov-Ribbentrop/Stalin-Hitler pact and horrific devastation of World War Two. How does the Marxist opposition to Stalinism fit into Hicks scheme? On one detail to show the poor level of scholarship, at 8:16 Hicks says “The Marxist theory of World War One is its all the capitalist countries getting together and going to war over resources and what is going to happen is the capitalist countries are going to kill each or weaken each other and that is going to provide the space for the communism revolution of some sort to fill the vacuum.” No Marxists said this. The pre-war resolutions of the Second Internationals said that “Should war break out nonetheless, it is their duty to intervene in favour of its speedy termination, and to do all in their power to utilise the economic and political crisis caused by the war to rouse the people and thereby to hasten the abolition of capitalist class rule.” www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/10/lect-a10.html. “War and Revolution: 1914-1917” Lenin called for turning the war into a civil war. Karl Liebkneckt in Germany, a leader of the SPD and the first parliamentarian there to vote against the war, said the main enemy was at home.
Rubbish . As he says it is claimed by Marxists to be scientific. Like all science it must be judged by the quality of its predictions . It is useless saying that at some unspecified future date capitalism will collapse, of course it will everything passes.
For those who don't want to read the long winded essay above, tjejojyj is basically saying "Hicks is wrong, because REAL Marxism hasn't been tried yet!"
“The policy of capitalist governments around the world to this crisis is austerity” *Wrong, wrong, WRONG* Listen to Warren G Hardings Republican Nomination acceptance speech and his inaugural address and look at his policies. Your definition of Austerity is a joke, every major economic crisis on earth in capitalist nations comes about through an expansion of credit almost universally tied to an expansion of government debt by the lowering of interest rates, the complete opposite of Austerity. The enemy is interest, nothing more, nothing less.
The problem with capitalism is that there is the tendency for economic power to be concentrated in private individuals while the problem with socialism/communism is that political and economic power is concentrated in the government. Can the capitalism be adjusted to produce equitable and sustained growth/development? Yes. All you need to check the excesses of capitalism is to have a government with a system of checks and balances enshrined in the constitution. Can socialism/communism be reformed to benefit the people? No, because in socialism/communism, economic and political might is concentrated in the government. Making the government absolutely powerful and we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any economic/political system that makes the government absolutely powerful will always fail. Always.
I believe this is a vast oversimplification of the historical reality, and that it presents a false dichotomy between "faith" (undefined) and reason. Very thin.
Private ownership and control of property, trade, distribution and the means of production. Or... Ownership and control of property, trade, distribution and the means of production by a centralised authority. There is no "collective" ownership and control of property, trade, distribution and the means of production, because someone has to be in charge of what is "fair" as a means of preventing the successful from becoming too successful. So which is more moral? One is generative and the other degenerative. The former does create massive disparity. Not fair? The latter does create massive equality. Fair? In the former, the poor get obesity, flat screens and a car while they move towards the middle class. In the latter, they get societal and economic collapse and starvation. So socialists. Is it the poor, or the disparity that is really the issue? If the socialist is honest, then it's the disparity that's the issue, because the poverty and starvation that socialism endlessly creates barely gets a mention, while they scream and rampage in indignation against the rich.
Terry O'Brien I think that Jordan Peterson touched on this when he noticed what was fundamentally wrong with Marxists: They don’t love the poor, they just hate the rich. Those aren’t the same thing, and a personal philosophy centered around hating someone else, whatever the reason, is a rotten philosophy.
Peterson was paraphrasing Orwell. Success illuminates failure, and that leads to immense resentment. I'd heard of this idea before, but it was Peterson that really distilled it...or Nietzsche that Peterson quoted. " "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge"-thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not"-thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamour!" You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamours thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy-perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers-erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge." - Nietzsche.
Terry O'Brien I’ve always found the concept of justice to be interesting, as I don’t think that humans can ever truly achieve “proper” justice, as its almost always steeped in the concept of “revenge.” It’s a little more complicated than that, obviously, but this certainly seems to be the case with what is perceived to be “Social Justice,” which is almost entirely predicated on wreaking vengeance on those you perceive to be oppressing you. In other words, it’s not about building yourself up, it’s about tearing everyone else down, and bringing them to your level. ... Oh crap. I *_just_* realized this was Father’s primary issue in Fullmetal Alchemist: he doesn’t try to bring himself to god’s level, he literally drags god down to his. What a trip.
You might like this then. Nietzsche on equality, SJWs and virtue posturing. "Behold, this is the hole of the tarantula. Do you want to see the tarantula itself? Here hangs its web; touch it, that it tremble! There it comes willingly: welcome, tarantula! Your triangle and symbol sits black on your back; and I also know what sits in your soul. Revenge sits in your soul: wherever you bite, black scabs grow; your poison makes the soul whirl with revenge. Thus I speak to you in a parable-you who make souls whirl, you preachers of equality. To me you are tarantulas, and secretly vengeful. But I shall bring your secrets to light; therefore I laugh in your faces with my laughter of the heights. Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms. The tarantulas, of course, would have it otherwise. "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge"-thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not"-thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!" You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamours thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy-perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers-erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge."
I don't exactly know if that would equate them to communists? Granted, I'm not well-versed on Native American societies, aside from the fact that they were not the "noble savages" that Hollywood wanted to paint them as (they killed each other, like, a lot. Over just as trivial of things that whitey did, no less) But they didn't engage in Captialism, beforehand. I think they employed a type of bartering system that worked because they were mostly made up of small, connected communities. The people IN the communities didn't resent one another, just those from other tribes, for whatever reasons. The simple fact of the matter is that I think if Communism were to be viable, it would have to be amongst a much smaller society. A "Country," I don't think, could ever exist as far as Communism goes. I'm not even sure a State would. It just doesn't seem to be feasible.
Kierkegaard reasoned that until one takes the leap over to the position of faith in that which is above materiality, into the metaphysical reality of the spirit, thinking continues to go around in circles from relativism to absolutism and everywhere in between. Without the realization and conviction of the omniscient and omnipotent figure called god, one is left with making embarrassing pronouncements like, "There is no such thing as absolute truth." Faith does not belong to the purview of the rational mind and at its apogee of human value, rationality can only point away to the need for the next level of consciousness in faith. Robert Frost, arguably the most read poet of the 20th century and four-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize was asked about his poetic technique and how he managed to be so prolific a poet, specifically how he made his poetry work... and his simple but elegant reply was, "You believe it in." When he would sit down to write, many times all he had was the belief that a poem would evolve because he had the faith in the poetic human consciousness, not necessarily in objective reality.
Money and equity will never make you happier than freedom will. You should never want government to control more of your life, rich or poor. You should never desire servitude over autonomy at any price.
That's exactly right. That's why I have such a soft spot for the libertarians. I'm not one, but their hearts are in the right place. Our ruling class, whether democratically elected, or selected by God as emperor, should have a bare minimum of power over the individual. Wishing for more regulations, equity, handouts, etc. is a cultural deathwish.
I would argue his take on socialism is a little simplified. Broadly speaking there are three types of socialism: 1. Social Democrates: grew out of the European labour union movement in the 1880s, and wanted a more just distribution of wealth. Captilasm is fine, but its excesses both high and low need to be curbed by gov't intervention in a mixed economy (free market in some areas, but also progressive income taxastion, legal regulations of the market, and social welfare programs to combat unemployment and poverty), and no revolutions. 2. Democratic Socialism: More in line with the Paris Commune attempt in the 1820s. Establish socialism through democratic means, but nationalise as much as possible to maximize employment and put the economy under democratic control. Peaceful political revolutions. 3. Communism: capitalism can't be reformed, democracy is a con, religion and popular entertainment are opium for the masses. Violent revolution is not only necessary but inevitable. Marx focused on proletariat (educated industrial workers) as agents of revolution, Moa Zedong and Pol Pot focused more on rural farmers.
A few things. You forgot flavor 4, Fascism/Nazism. That one was "we believe in the paradise promised by Socialism, but the obvious failure in Russia has to be explained. Our explanation is that only our superior ethnicity is capable of properly enacting the Socialist strategy, so we'll eschew international Socialism in favor of a nationalistic Socialism". It's also not much of a critique to say that a 20 minute video didn't do a deep dive into every flavor of Socialism. It focused on the arguments that apply to, at a minimum, all international Socialism. There's no point in deconstructing every variant from Syndicalism on down when it's simply an origin story for Post-Modernism.
This is all great, except it costs $33 for a sandwich right now and no one under the age of 30 is ever going to own a home ever again and the population is collapsing due to people electing not to have children because they are scared it’ll impoverish them and/or they prefer a hedonistic lifestyle centred on temporary pleasure. The populations across the western world are declining at extinction rates and are already being enthusiastically displaced by people from the third world who have absolutely zero interest in carrying on any of the systems or institutions that define western liberal democracy. Socialism tends to require great force and cruelty to impose, but sadly some of those predictions may actually come true, even if delayed by a century and a half. In the grand scheme of time, they might seem to have been perfectly prognosticated. People are depleting their scant savings to compensate for insanely inflated costs of groceries and housing, hoping something will come along to correct the course. Meanwhile, social security and Medicare programs are unsustainable because the top-heavy population is consuming unprecedented resources as they live longer and drag their wealth with them to the grave. Wages have been stagnant for decades and home prices have almost tripled relative to income. The middle class is cascading into poverty while a poverty class of migrants continues to flood across the border with no end in sight. So the effect is going to be tens of millions of new poor people and extreme concentrations of wealth for the few who own “the means of production”. None of this means communism is a solution. Nothing in history comes close to suggesting that communism would solve any of this. If anything, “equalising” the population would require pretty much everyone to be poorer than they are right now. It also doesn’t mean “capitalism” has failed. It just means that we have been ineffective stewards of the economy and resources and *we* have failed. Either way, this video is on track to age very poorly in the next 5-10 years.
As someone who is not a marxist, but studied the original works of Marx. The superficial understanding of this gentleman is surprising to me. I’m glad that I met Professor Boland in SFU and he showed us the right approach to study Marx (he also was not a Marxist). This guy is describing a very particular interpretation of Marx. This is by no means shared by many left Marxist. Of course, the left of today has nothing to do with the original socialist movement.
i am in south africa...we have the highest levels of inequality. the middle class initially increased but is decreasing. the working class\prolieteriat is increasing, unemployment is increasing. the middle class will dwindle with job losses and emigration, the rich will decrease. in the end we will have a few rich and a very large proliterat.
Explained by an x kgb guy in 1983, few listened, here is is lecture. Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society (Complete) m.ruclips.net/video/5gnpCqsXE8g/видео.html
To try to break any of this down without first thoroughly dissecting the times is apathetic. Everyone on the right, the left and in between seem to do it. The effects on the world from the Napoleonic Wars, the beginnings of the early industrial revolution, the forms of economic hierarchy as well as economic theories in Russia, Central Europe, France and Brittain, and the United States, as well as the population growth experienced at the end of the 17th and beginnings of 18th centuries are all tremendously important to understand. You cannot dissect capitalism, socialism, Marxism etc without diving into all of that first. We should be factual and explain context, not characterize bad people as bad simply for the popularity and ease with which you can do so. We should be thorough in understanding these things even if only for the sole purpose of not allowing things which have happened in the past to occur again. This guy is doing a great job of showing you exactly how most opponents to Marx, who deserves more opposition than most in economic history, fail to explain why his theories were faulty and became evil, and were used to do some of the most evil things in history. And it's all because most people don't care enough to really sit down and learn about it, they just want to feel educated and pat themselves on the back for reaching the same conclusion as those who really wish to know the extremely deep details of the arguments and historical contexts. This creates overgeneralization and mischaracterization, which creates a reaction within or the further growth of that which you failed to understand in the first place. In other words, not truly understanding the thing helps further / grow the thing itself.
A few weeks ago, I re-read the Communist Manifesto for the first time in about 35 years. I have to say that it was strikingly postmodernist in its tone. More than anything, it seemed to me like an extended gish gallop, with schoolboy hyperbole and the blithest non-sequitur as its stock-in-trade. The experience was very much like what happened when I tried to read Zizek.
I read it in my early 40s and I was so disappointed. It's a petulant little brochure that is unbelievably vague. I was hoping to get a clear understanding of how communists thought. I thought it was going to be a blueprint. Instead it was just an angry little rant that was vague in the rant and vague in its suggestions, suggestions that lasted about two pages. I thought it was going to be their vision of how to run society but it wasn't at all. It was mostly just complaints about society. I tried to read it in historical context because I'm sure life at the bottom of the totem pole was much worse back then so I understood the frustration, but it was still the most low resolution thinking ever.
@@jasondashneyThe Communist Manifesto is supposed to be read by all types of people, not necessarily the philosophers. If you want a solid grasp of Marxism that doesn't have much ambiguity, you should read The German Ideology, Das Kapital, Anti-Dühring by Engels etc.
@@egezort perhaps I will get it on audiobook. I just don’t have time to read longform books anymore. I didn’t realize it was about more than just money complaints. Thanks.
People of the world: spice up your life! AHHH! Now, seriously. Watch Hicks' talk complete. It is very, very good and very well explained. I really recommend it.
Great perspectives here imo but the oversimplification of socialism and the history is kind of wild. There’s much more nuance not mentioned. Part of the reason the US and capitalistic societies recovered from the depression and ww2 was because of socialist/marxist ideals, like the new deal, etc. Also this blending of ideology is what helped communism survived to the modern day after the fall of the USSR. Like china embracing a more open/capitalist driven economic system.
Not all socialist ideas are Marxist. The New Deal was not Marxist. Marxism is explicitly revolutionary and dialectical. It is the dialectic that was disproven by the depression.
On the other hand, many scholars have argued the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression. In spite of failing over and over again, socialism survives not because it is effective or has potential. It survives because it holds the promise of allowing certain people to have power over other people. Strip away all the platitudes and the slogans. When put into practice, leftism is always and forever strictly about the sick desire of some people to wield power over one's fellows.
There's 20 minutes I'll never get back. The focus on postmodernism is what prompted me to spend this time on this video. I think you can assume a lot of the audience know and understand the history (the majority of the video): take the last minute and develop that. You've not addressed the main focus of your talk (unless this is the preamble of a longer talk).
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Democracy is a pipe dream until everyone has a good education not the shit we get today in the west. When i say good i mean in political ideology and its history
This guy glosses over 100 years of progressive movements and reforms that forced capitalists to share more of the wealth, thus saving capitalism from itself.
As soon as i heard "the middle class is getting bigger" i knew he was full of it. How do we define "middle class?" They are up to their eyeballs in debt, that's how.
Or youre ignorant or stupid and really dont know much about political ideology and its history of which you sound like a classic, probably usa american as they are the most ignorant and stupid
Dr. Hicks work is outstanding, his book "Explaining Postmodernism" is a must read. The only conclusion I would disagree with is that you have to pick reason or faith( min 18), in my opinion the two actually compliment each other. The real question is, are you relying only on materialism to explain our existence or do you accept materialism to drive the mechanism of science in understanding the natural law but use faith or philosophy to understand our existence, especially how we ought to conduct our lives with each other. In an enlightenment society we rally around natural law but give faith its place in society on an individual rights basis with the further acknowledgment that a moral society is necessary for democracy to sustain itself. I believe our constitution and the bill of rights struct just about the best balance between the two that could be accomplished. As a believer I'm grateful the idea of separation of church met the challenge to was keep the government out of religious institutions and to keep religious institutions out of government. But, the genius of the founders was to allow the societal underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian worldview to act as our cultural foundation.
Related to this is the Marxist narrative in the Civil Rights Movement. In the early 1950's, the NAACP in Montgomery, Alabama felt comfortable to train Rosa Parks in civil disobedience without fear that she would be tortured, raped and executed. Contrast that with the shocking oppression of Stalinist USSR. No doubt the segregated South was very unjust, but it was still more humane than Marxist countries. However, that does not fit into the Marxist narrative, so civil rights mythology has been created to fit the Marxist narrative. Yes, some protesters were killed during the Civil Rights struggle, but it was at the hands of isolated criminals, not the government. Civil RIghts history has been mythologized to fit the Marxist narrative.
Thats rubbish - Black Panthers murdered by the state. Nina Simone incarcerated by CIA. I would also argue Malcolm x , MLK will have been orgainised CIA killings. MKultra
Marx made an excellent scientific analysis of capitalism as it existed at the time. he didn't include in his analysis the sort of feed back loop that takes place in a democracy that led to the modern social democratic state, because it hadn't happened yet. if we were to follow Marx example we would continue to look at the world as it is and follow the facts where they lead us. anytime someone holds up a book that someone else wrote and says "this is what I believe"maybe you should read the book he's holding but you shouldn't listen to him
The problem with the opening is he summarises and misrepresented the situation so fundamentally that future discussion will be tainted. One must separate Marx into two people . One the critique of capitalism in Das Capital and the other the revolutionary in Communist Manifesto. Point three is incorrect . Capitalism will constantly crash due to internal contradiction , the paradox of needing to dampen wages to increase profitability which in turn decreases profitability because there is less spare income. This often happens in modern universities that have become ideological . The point above is a key issue with capitalism and Marx correctly modelled that the system will continuously reinvent until the people choose something different. I didn’t bother to look further given such a fundamental error means the lecturer is either incompetent or has an agenda or both. On an aside - Modernity is what caused Post Modernism .
He lies continuously throughout. Claiming that marxists were making predictions about middle class shrinking and upper class as if these are terms marxists even endorse. Pure ignorance, pure capitalist propaganda, not even well crafted.
Yup. I did listen further. He commits a common math error, (wrongly) assuming a common denominator. Not having revealed the basis of his his numerical claims, it is equally plausible that what he claims as the success of capitalism, might actually be the success of slavery, followed by a freed-slave economic class, followed by externalization of slavery (Chinese etc people earning American pennies), concurrent with downward pressurized near-slaves of working class Americans who lose their health care, if they leave their jobs. The false denominator is his failure to include foreign workers’ inputs in the total population. When you add to the denominator, the 2- 3 billion extremely poor workers in Asia (China, India, etc) who support the apparent affluence of the American middle class, what you have is a vanishing percentage of middle class Americans. Instead of, say, ~70% of the population being middle class, the 200M middle-class Americans represent about 10% of the total population producing the apparent wealth of America. His is, mathematically, externalizing the costs of the American economy, while internalizing its “profit.” His data is fraudulent. As his lecture continues, his arguments devolve into fantastical rhetoric, fully abandoning any academic legitimacy, to make a political point that agrees with his ideological bias. He also takes the least generous interpretation of the history of socialism (dictatorships, actually) and compares them to the most favourable interpretation of the most favourable example of capitalism, American Capitalism, when it is/was highly regulated and taxed, and completely ignoring the social injustices that were present (the genocide of black and indigenous peoples). Total waste of time, if what you were looking for was facts, rather than propaganda.
The subject matter of this lecture is very ideological, covering little in terms of historical events or data and referencing 0 primary accounts. I don't have a problem with people voluntarily paying for this, but it strikes me as odd that conservatives would appreciate it after having railed against the liberal equivalent so aggressively for so long. If all you wanted was increased representation in universities, that's cool, but don't hate on the other side for doing its thing.
Why did this happen in such a big scale now and not 1000 years before? It is because of surplus resources, the massively improved living conditions for most.
if you got a good education and knew history and ideology and listened to others apart from liberals like hicks with an agenda you would answer your own question
Capitalism brings out the worst and best in humans. Socialism and Marxism only bring out the worst in humans. Choose the lesser of two evils like China and Russia did. They eventually had to choose capitalism.
Well done on demonstrating you have never read any of Marx’s works directly. Give his Foundation (Grundrisse) notebooks a go, as they are the most in-depth analysis of money. Unlike most studies by political economists and ‘economists’, Marx does not stop at a single ‘definition’ of money, but examines how money has evolved over time from (1) a means of exchange, through (2) being a measure of value, (3) a store of value (a horde), (4) a catalyst to activity, and (5) a means of commanding the labour of others. His analysis showed that money is not a part of ‘nature’ but a developing form of social relationships - it had a birth time and place, a youth, adulthood, and is now it old age, becoming more and more fictions in its attempts to control human activity, an activity which is bursting at the seems to escape the controls of money.
@@doctormcgrail Well done on demonstrating the most profound level of ignorance and stupidity possible by anyone claiming to be a subhiman. It took less than one sentence of your drivel for anyone to know not to waste an additional precious second of their time on this pile of mind numbing waste. And quit pretending that you're a doctor. You're an embarrassment to anyone who holds credentials.
@@doctormcgrail Marxis' work is incoherent trash. Anyone trumpeting that rubbish is an ideologically possessed, weak-minded hurd animal and puppet for totalitarian, elitist, monopolistic, genocidal maniacs.
Much of his argument is laid on sand as he asserts that Marxism makes "moral" claims, and that the reduction of poverty contradicts the basic tenets of Marxism, both of which display a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism. Even if poverty were entirely dispelled from the planet, the antagonisms of inequality will always remain as long as the income disparity between the richest and poorest remains as extreme as it is. Mr Hicks is well spoken, and evokes authority, so I am going to guess that he's never lived in a working class area nor had major financial problems in his life. Sadly, this renders his perspective woefully incomplete. The New Left were/are a disaster though. They have helped to dismantle the genuinely progressive elements of Marxism, and the disparity between the rich and the poor has never been so great. Instead of focusing on how to successfully transform the economic base, they unknowingly carry out the bidding of multi-national corporations, unified by a religion called identity.
Peter Hastie I did think it was incredibly strange how he kept referencing this ‘moral Marxist claim’, since Marx never makes any claim to morality in all of his work
@@trainof The fact that one person is born to wealth and another to poverty within the same society causes class conflict, which is the primary source of conflict within society. To eliminate that is not a moral principle, it is a rational one.
I'd like to see some data actually proving what Hicks says at 5:00 or so.The middle class in 2018 is clearly shrinking and the super rich are pulling away from everyone else at faster speeds. It's true that Americans earn more in raw numbers than they did a century ago, but the cost of living is so much greater now than it was then that the category of 'poverty' would have to be changed, in absolute terms, to reflect these economic changes. I'd nevertheless agree with Hicks that socialists have failed to provide a real alternative to capitalism, and that wealth redistribution hasn't been proven to reverse poverty rates.
Open4991 what? Do you think that every one needs to be “super rich”? Are you a child? Maybe you could be a super something else! What is it with you people to think that everyone can be super at everything? How about a super artist or musician, or golfer? Good grief, get your sh XX together and aim at something that gives your life meaning. You can do that in the USA now more than ever thanks to the super rich Bill Gates and Steve Jobs! Count your lucky stars instead of other people’s pocketbooks!
E Pruden Can you maybe slow down a minute and consider that I'm not a Marxist? I said as much in my very first post. It doesn't bother me on a personal level that other people are richer than I am, and I'm pretty okay with where my life is, really. Like Jordan Peterson says, however: massive income disparities create chaos for a society, and that's really my concern, here. I want to create a safe, stable, healthy society, and I'm interested to see if there are ways of doing that that haven't been tried recently. I should point out to you that we had higher employment rates before Microsoft existed than we do today, so I'm not seeing how I owe Bill Gates much of anything, other than fees for a renewal of my office suite subscription.
I'd say that a solid argument can be made that the situation at hand came into being as things went towards the very structures and policies that claim capitalism would cause this. As they gained in power and popularity, as their policy shifts were implemented, we get the shifts they predicted. Odd points of data that. My view of it is, take Capitolism as your base, apply the minimum level of social programs needed and maintain a government that both can and will intercede to keep opportunities to get into the economy open and keep corporate power levels in check. The people and corporations will be more than capable of keeping government power in check as it stands. I would wager that a lack of government regulation on corporate power aimed specifically at keeping opportunities open rather then curtailing behavior is at least part of what is going awry here. Social programs have value only in their ability to increase the number of productive law abiding citizens per capita. Everything else is self destructive. Government regulation and intervention on the market only has value if it maintains competition. (Ergo if the banks have fucked up, you do not bail them out. If you feel compelled to do so? Not without massively shackling the kind of behavior that got them into this mess as the price they pay for this failure.) On occasion you will have economic bubbles and letting the air out of them is another function that on occasion the government (or preferably an open, honest new media focused on reporting the facts and informing the public!) must do. I don't want a handout, I want access to competitive education, training and the chance to make a living wage. Every time a government program fills in for a problem, the root isn't addressed. Bailing water out of a boat only works for so long if you don't find the leak before it widens.
I really don't think apples are being compared with apples when compared to what people had to endure and cope with in the past relative to today. Namely as people are so privileged today they take so many things as a given or granted. From food to basic sanitation. That people used to need to fix things in the past because unlike today they couldn't hope to afford a new product than compared to what is offered today. That every night, especially during the weekend, young adults are spending stupid amounts of money on booze. This doesn't suggest to me as a society we are struggling. Though some arguments can be made I more usually notice that peoples circumstances are based on poor life choices. That this to me doesn't appear a problem of the economy than compared to short sightedness. Not something I really care to nanny for. That you make your own bed in life.
We need to agree on ONE TERM to describe all of this. The enemy must be identified by name so that people can be aware it exists and discuss what to do about it. Post modernism, identity politics, intersectionality, relativism, political correctness, secular globalisation, etc. is too much.
He leaves out two HUGE historical facts that alter the story: 1. The industrialists violently resisted the labor movement, but the labor movement proved successful. 2. The US (and, I assume, other Western nations) introduced anti-trust laws to break up the overwhelming monopolies that grew in the late 1800s. Each of these helped to prevent Marx’s predictions. I am not a Marxist, but this guy is deliberately warping the story. One more: Like the Soviets who smashed democracy in Hungary Czechoslovakia, the US toppled democratic moves toward socialism in Guatemala and Chile and installed cruel dictators. Question: What does that do for the faithful believers in US altruism? Answer: Your history professor will not mention these events so your snowflake soul won’t be troubled by them.
During the cold war both sides resorted on installing their puppets on various states. They even held proxy wars, like Vietnam. Yes the US was shameless and more open about it. My country spiralled in a civil war of power. Although we lost a lot by staying with the allies the country has always been in better shape than it's former commie neighbours. You guys really think you are the good guys..
1. So marxists prediction was wrong. 2. So? Nothing to do with the presentation. This lecture isn’t about how the cia stopped socialist governments to commit genocides in replacement for other cruel pseudo fascist dictatorships. Nobody here is denying it happened.
I'm a former liberal who left the left in 2020. Never in my life did I think I would ever vote for Trump/Republicans, but here I am. The transformation the left has gone through in the last 10-15 years (especially since 2020) has been horrifying to watch, this is no longer liberalism, this is a Maoist style cultural revolution.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Wokeness is to Liberalism what mind control fungus is to ants. Your side got body-snatched. Welcome to the light.
Hicks has a great lecture on postmodernism and how a person finding themselves in a weak mental position will resent someone in a strong mental position, then the weak person will attribute virtue to their weakness. Then the strong is inherently evil and unjust compared to the resentful weakling. To me, this clicked as the core of this victim mentality ideology. They are weak people who demand power and authority under the guise of compassion - oftentimes, deluding themselves alongside everyone else.
Leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their births, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
100% correct. It is a new Mao's revolution, literally.
What do you do when reality shows your idea is bullcrap?
A.) admit you were wrong
B.) double down and ignore reality
C.) triple down and create a philosophy that says objective reality isn’t real so anything can be true so you can ignore the disastrous results of your cult- i mean ideology.
What are some disastrous results?
communists: capitalism is objectively not the best we can do
capitalists: truth doesn't even exist anymore bro
communists: We represent the absolute truth!
capitalists: You can't handle the truth!
@@chrischrin Crawl out from under your rock, wipe your professor's slime from your buttocks and then read truthful history.
@@steven2183 Exactly wrong, genius.
Like I said, Crawl out from under your rock, wipe your teacher's slime from your ass and then read truthful history.
If you study Marx’s life and his indolent nature,you certainly wouldn’t want to emulate his character and his lack of integrity.
I don't really need to study his life. He had a slave girl, that's all I need to know about him.
@ As bad as that sounds it’s nothing compared to his other short comings.
Appreciate you linking our full lecture and helping us spread this much needed lecture to as many people as possible !
More lectures to come soon!
Marx had a messy room
And his wife was not a doctor.
And they both had stank-foot
So does Jordan Peterson
twitter.com/michaelchildi/status/1007488712115187712
He also got his maid pregnant while his wife was pregnant.
Peterson has been accused of sexual impropriety three times.
As someone on the moderate left, I really appreciate these videos. They help me understand how the far left has lost touch with reality and give me the information I need to stand up to the increasing movement to the left.
You posted your comment 3 years ago. I stopped voting democrat in 2012. I will never vote for a democrat in a very, very long time. I hope you are standing up to the increasing movement to the left. Boys are girls and girls are boys, and 32 genders is real science. I experienced communism in Cuba and Nicaragua. The progressive left is regressive. Go figure.
Same
Left and right are words that barely mean anything anymore, at least in North America. The left is in favour of authoritarianism and censorship and the right is all about people being allowed to do what they want. The entire philosophy of liberalism is about how the individual matters. Today that's mostly on the right and it is seen as immoral by the left who favour group identities. Look with the pandemic brought us. The left is now on their knees before gigantic mega international corporations and especially scary is how they totally bought into big Pharma. 20 years ago nobody would've believed you if you would've said that the left would love mega corporations, and censorship, and a loss of individual freedom. That they would try to ensure that academia did not allow a diversity of opinion. That it was extraordinarily easy to lose your entire livelihood and be blacklisted for saying something that they deemed offensive. They are the modern version of the 1980s right wing "moral majority". It's the strangest thing ever.
@@matthewparlato5626 Check out Salerno's lectures on Marx vs marxism though. I would however take a certain point farther than him : One of the problems today is that both the extreme Left, the whole Right and the moderate Left tend to turn history on its head, and repeat something that actually is a pollution and myth from nazi times in Europe : That Marx was equivalent to what now is called marxism. This however is largely totally false. If you think about Engels, Rousseau, Weishaupt and Lenin mixed up in a pinpointed version where 1/3 of the body has the IQ of Donald Trump or an average AntiFa street grunt or QAnon people, Pride activists and Greta Thunb., you have marxism.
Marx himself however was a pretty good intellectual, and pointed out a couple of very relevant issues for his time, some of them still relevant. (My place if I had been an american voter would be at maybe 80 percent Libertarian party, 10 percent Abe Lincoln republican and 10 percent JFK Democrat). Where Marx was somewhat unrealistic was believing that socialism plan economy could succeed and that the state could be abolished in the long run. Rather I would say that the political state ought to be abolished straight away and never return.
Stalin, Alistair Crowley and Trotsky were proto-modernism marxists, Valerie Solanas modernity age marxist, while flat earthers, Klaus Schwab and the Burning man festival community are postmodern marxists. Karl Marx was not an anthroposophical or theosophical marxist worth mentioning. And certainly not a China marxist.
Antonio Francesco Gramsci (died 1937). The Frankfurt School. The rise of popular existentialism. These theories, ideas, movements allowed the universities to reshape ideology. Popular culture has now embraced some of these ideas and weaponized them.
The idea of ideas being weaponized is the real conversation taking place here.
great summary
You don't know shit
@@banjobro64 you never opened their books, it shows, and it is lame
Luckily for you, @12HHoo, no one's around to demand that you back up your poppycock with examples.
Nothing in the left's current demented landscape has anything to do with Gramsci, Frankfurt School or existentialism.
What an incredible speaker. I think I heard him say “um” once. I can’t even type words that fluidly.
He says "right?" instead.
Incredible deceiver, that's for sure
@@channeldoesnotexistwhere's the lie?
@@mariussielcken the lie is : if you ever opened their books you would know
An excellent point six years later
Socialism / Marxism has one overarching fatal flaw: human nature. The beauty of capitalism is that it requires cooperation. Economies that are transactional require mutual benefit, win/win. Requires that both sides benefit tho not necessarily equally. Enterprises not doing so are eventually crushed by the market. It's not perfect and needs corrections from time to time ( antitrust laws for example) but the data clearly shows it is the most successful "ism" in the history of mankind for productivity, innovation, standard of living, class mobility, and lifting countless millions out of poverty.
Bravo
One of Adam Smith’s ideas is that individuals serve the public good more effectively when they serve their own self interest than when they claim to affect to trade for the public good. I have never seen an explanation or analysis for why but If this really is true then I think it is the only justification we need for why free market capitalism is better than socialism.
'The beauty of capitalism is that it requires cooperation'....what a crappy thought....Edifying a communist society requires even more cooperation but at least in theory for the benefit of all members of society..In a capitalist socio economic environment from cooperation is rather in many cases pure exploitation for the benefit of one or a few individuals....Look at the poverty around you in the USA and ....have a walk on the streets of Philadelphia....That horrible dark side of American capitalism scared even Aleksandr Soljenitsin.....
EXACTLY , one thing not discussed is how these systems work in a society that values individual freedom.
ONLY capitalism works in such a society.
So the question one has to ask themselves is how much do you value your freedom ?
Except capitalism has all these giant companies and billionaires pushing LGBT, feminism, and racial conflict on the working-class. Poverty is relative. A janitor today is richer than a medieval king because he has an iPhone. The end result of capitalism will be transhumanism. This is what the worship of rationality gives you. Read Heidegger’s Essay on Technology, Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, or Feyeraband’s Against Method. You can take the good and leave the bad from postmodernists.
I am a mechanical engineer. I once tried to pick up a copy of Capitalism, by Marx. In it, I found some of the most absurd formulas I had ever seen. It was like looking at the Drake Equation. The only reason this guy got popular was because he appealed to people's envy.
But I don't understand how postmodernism grew out of Marxist thought. Because there is no real essence to postmodernism, it doesn't believe in essence. It started as a movement in art, not philosophy. So I think if you want to trace its roots, you look to art, not science or politics.
And the beard. The weird beards must be smart right?
Quite right.
Marx’s main work was called “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy”, not “Capitalism” (as you claim). If you can’t read the title properly, it is no surprise you don’t understand the content. Then your ‘statement’ that Marx became popular only because he appealed to people’s envy really shows you made no effort. Being honest, and making an effort to understand what someone else is saying is key to acceptable academic debate. Is this how you conduct your studies in mechanical engineering?
Because Marxism failed and post modernism is the excuse of it
@@doctormcgrailAfter LIVING the marxism and what marxists are whiling to do to impose their religion, I can say that the one that didn’t understood Marxism is you.
The best I ever encountered was by some psychologist in a popular book ( do not remember who ) that on a family level we are all communists - because we rely on each other help and can share resources and results if our work and be completely selfish; the larger the human group - the less it becomes relevant and workable! Then just add basic knowledge of history of Soviets , Cuba , China , Cambodia - and see what it brings when implemented on large scale … stupid idiots today believe that they discovered magic idea that end all problems- ignoring all that happened before ! Pretending that if you don’t share this delusion you want people to die in utter poverty because you are heartless… crazy times
Sit through any estate hearing and you'll find out that even at the smallest unit of society -- the family -- humans are not communistic by nature. They are benign autocracies or oligarchies, at best.
Marx was the first ever entitled millennial.
@amibrainwashed… For sure, an entitled millennial who was in dire poverty most of his entire life and would never have survived as long as he did without the financial assistance he received from Friedrich Engels.
Who felt that his great work was more important than supporting his family.
@@chuckhall5347 Not true at all. There are a lot of reputable biographies of Marx. Find one and enlighten yourself. Marx wasn't a self-important egotist.
@@mkq77 Uhm. He was wrong, but sincere and did write 24 books. All wrong, but people were looking for solutions and he gave them one that forced everyone else to sit up and take notice.
Might not have had trade unions if there wasn't the fear all those teamsters would come back from wars and use their guns against DC.
Silly statement
This guy is a spectacular speaker!
I'm constantly blown away by the sophistication in his arguments
he's a liar
ruclips.net/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/видео.html
@@icantpursuewhatimtrulypass7335 about what? Please tell me what he is lying about.
@@merlinthewizard3680 linked you a video
@@icantpursuewhatimtrulypass7335 I don't see the link to the video
I wish I had college professors like this. I live in a very deep blue state
Stephen Hicks, Roger Scruton, Jordan Peterson is the best trio against the new left!
JesusFriedChrist
The problem is that the new left has been over run with socialists. The moderate left are a Dying Breed now being called Nazi by the entire media industry, entertainment industry and academia which is serving to brainwash even more socialists in youth.
Because of this we do see one good thing... moderate right and moderate left joining forces along with some small L libertarian types among the population of the Western World standing together who all seem to be at least standing together on free speech and trying as hard as possible to reveal the lies of Socialist claims concerning white supremacy around every corner.
JesusFriedChrist Steven Hicks is the guy in the video
For now. Still waiting for the heavy-hitter. There's always one.
And Thomas Sowell.
who is roger scruton?
Enlightened presentation; Rational and informative
Indeed!
By every metric the more free a market the better it does. What makes you think capitalism would not last 10 years? That claim seams unfounded.
pure capitalism lasted for almost 150 years......and led to the single greatest technological and quality of living boom in history this is historic fact....... in short youre an idiot and you absolutely support socialism you just dont know it....
Randy Miller -- You say, "the more free a market the better it does". Trump obviously disagrees with you: he is imposing tarriffs on many imported goods to 'protect American jobs'.
Jacob Richardson : Your tinfoil hat is a little too tight.
This critique of post modernism can be found throughout the history of knowledge and philosophy. Plato had a similar criticism of the sophists, Nietzsche has a passage in Gotzen-Dammerung that's also similar. Even the thinkers described as postmodernists and marxists (for example Ranciere and Foucault) critique this very development explicitly throughout their authorships. Marxism didn't create the postmodern left and abandoned reason, but if you believe it to be, and if you really want to believe it, "everything will be shaped to fit the political commitment", even if this commitment is blaming "our current epistemological crisis" on neo-marxists. But the crisis existed before both marxists, post modernists and Stephen Hicks.
Then you dive into the area of subjectivism (neoplatonism) vs realism/reason/objectivism. Platon himself (we use the greek original N in Scandinavia to his name) was both an objectivist and subjectivist in some sense.
In a very short version one could say that if you mix up catholic mysticism of the 1800s with totalitarian collectivism with liberal anarchism you get the Modernity movement in arts and culture philosophy. Post-modernism is the modernity movement mixed up with marxism, globalism and libertarianism. It is not only negative, but mostly it is rather dumb/anti-science and non-intellectual. Dr L Dunegan, ex KGB Bezmenov and the eagermost critics against the Burning man environment like that australian guy, were all correct that Moscow processes also re-started by Putin today (angled to manipulate also the Right into subjectivist populism like QAnon, Alex Jones, Trump community etc) = a major engine of how postmodernism spread out worldwide.
is it then really a crisis? or just a school of thought? also can we just appreciate the complete lack of societal awareness of starting out a lecture by saying inequality isnt increasing to problematic levels the way marx predicted during the decades when exactly that is happening?
The craziest people are those who believe that they have an answer to the world's problems. The world is chaotic, and no one can find an answer to that. Jesus Christ tried and the Jews crucified him for daring to challenge their crazy view of the world.
I just find PoMo meaningless
It is. It's based entirely on Nihilism. Which is meaningless. They do not like any meaning to be derived, because they know that a lot of the underlying truths behind the meanings will work against them. The difference is, you decide to overcome adversity, and they decide to capitalize on it.
Threaten to fire a Post-Modernist Professor who has tenure. I think you'll find that he's going to do a complete 180 and tell you that words and texts have meanings....very definite meanings. That he'll bring up in his lawsuit for wrongful dismissal and violation of contract.
In other words...they're complete and total hypocrites. Derrida said it best. Post-Modernism is just a fun game to play with words and language. Often at the taxpayer's or student's expense.
Well, yes, wanting to have your cake and eat it to will always make one a hypocrite. It's entirely based on this. They want people to treat them well and read their minds without every attempting to give others the benefit of the doubt. They are their own worst enemy, and this will not change until they hurt themselves, unfortunately...or they get slapped back into reality like I did after college.
because in pomo, meaning is repressive. the only meaning in postmodernism is the meaning of power and destruction for their own sake.
a Quisp decoder ring for the clevers that say nothing and put all their effort into having nothing to say.
I like the metaphor at the end. Marxism is indeed the religion of the young.
Well yes, because young people who grew up in middle class family and used to getting an allowance and Christmas presents, game consoles whatever... They're going to grow up wanting this to continue into their adult life. They're literally looking for government to play a parental role in their lives.
@@robZzdaboss they want to prevent corporatism - which is a noble pursuit.
I once read a quote from a new mother in her late 20s in one of the Soviet republics and she said "Revolution is for the young. You can't fight a war while holding a baby".
@@jasondashney'give me one generation of children and I will give you the new man!' -Lenin
@@docmemphisthat would be a noble pursuit, except corporatism is not their primary concern. Being taken care of by the government is a higher priority. I have a 22 year old that actually believes that she should have to work only a 20 hour week, and that the government should provide the balance of what she needs (or wants?). She has friends that feel this way, and they’re not alone in this, many in this age group think this way-robZ is right.
thank you for linking our full video
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
socialism is idealist and capitalism is realist. it is the responsibility of every man to make it out of poverty on his own; not the government. every man for himself. freedom! liberty!
Capitalism makes it almost impossible to do so.
@@briancox9357Because we don't have a true free market capitalism nor do most of you understand that. Democracy and capitalism cannot coexist in large scale societies without the formation of monopolies that are nearly impossible to break down because of the lack of a free market.
@@briancox9357But capitalism has raised millions of people out of poverty or did you miss that part of the lecture? Postmodernism only became a thing when socialists realized the proletariat, who’d you would think would be its greatest champions, failed to adopt it.
@@januarysson5633 One third of the world's population today is dangerously underfed, and one fifth is on a starvation diet. Over one billion people don't have access to drinking water. How is that raising millions out of poverty? That only happened initially because of the industrial revolution. Today we are on the verge of the 4th industrial revolution and millions are descending back into poverty, especially the middle class. It's a myth that it's getting bigger. It's shrinking by leaps and bounds. And this is not be error, but by design.
18:44 - Yes, Postmodernism may have _begun_ as a crisis of faith. But for those who've never experienced this crisis but adopt postmodernism anyway, their commitment remains unexplained here.
Because crisis of faith does not mean someone losing faith on an individual level, but the general lack of faith in society in general constitutes a crisis of faith. People who are raised atheist and were never religious have a crisis of faith collectively because they don't really believe in anything.
@@robZzdaboss Most people in the US and the UK these days are atheists or simply "non-believers," but VERY FEW of them were raised that way. Most people over the age of forty were more-or-less raised in the Christian or Jewish faiths, yet they no longer believe in God.
The rise of Christianity was really a crisis of faith in Judaism... It created a new dogma that refused to submit to the Roman's - which was a huge dividing point in the Jewish community at the time.
A crisis or schism lead to a hardcore
@DieFlabbergast In my generation, I don't believe children growing up in Christian families were given a serious grounding in their faith. There was a loss of confidence in the teaching generation on account of an aggressive assault on Christianity from generations of intellectuals, starting in the so-called enlightenment and gathering influence in the 19th century. There is pushback to this: e.g. Pope John Paul II: Fides et Ratio.
Fascism was of the far Left. The start of the second world war was when the three self proclaimed socialist countries (working together) started invading neighbouring countries. These were the Germans, Russians and Italians. It is only because Socialist Germany betrayed and invaded socialist Russia that we don't admit WW2 was basically begun with socialist war mongering. Because the Fascist Socialists were defeated and the Bolshevik Socialists fought on the Allies winning side we are taught not think of Hitler's National Socialists as socialists. In the same way today we say the Jihadist Muslims fighting against us are not really Muslims at all. It is a propaganda.
Yes but Socialism requires authoritarianism in that it takes power unto itself and has to block other power structures from emerging. The Soviet Union of course is the prime example (Gulag Archipeligo) but so was Mussolini's left wing Fascista Party - "All within the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state". Authoritarianism is a left wing characteristic even if people are taught to think of this authoritarianism as being in the support of a greater good (which they all do).
Bullshit
Germans and italians were nationalist, not sotialists. Stupid comment. :D also after monarchical structutes were abolished in Europe, no wonder there was a mess looking for new forms of goverment
Also blaming socialism for ww2 is absurd :D don’t forget what’s really in power - money and recources. Nationalism speard way more then socialism did at those times after Napaleon wars and 1848, spring of nations. Germany was established recently and started to be a dominant power for in a fight for recources. Don’t forget why wars happen, dummie
@@abucsauthorathism legacy came from monarchical structures. When abolsihment of monarchy started the left and the right was formated during Revolution. The right was for a monarchical/authoritarian stucture and the left wanted liberty and equality for all, no one had a “divine” right to be better off. So don’t be a funny guy with your imaginative perspectives, you can try to read history books maybe
Marx was not an economist nor even a social scientist. He described bad situations we all know. He described good situations we all want. These he described as digmas. He revealed by his matrix of " history " that inevitably the bad situations would evolve into the good. It was wishful intellectual bunkum. Nothing happens in Marx except because Marx reveals it. Moreover he gave no mechanisms to realize his perfection of human mature, except the " dictatorship of the proletariat " The infantile assumption : everything will be ticketyboo when the workers are in charge, just as the infantile feminists believe everything will be ticketyboo when women are in charge.
Communism pretends to be democratic but it is a religion that has the only true politucal/religious truth. So it must be a one party government ie a totalitarian dictatorship, and inevitably therefore corrupt. So foolish was this revelation of dogmas that Marxism/communism did not work. Desperately the communists invented the revisionist doctrine of " scientific socialism " ie thet tweaked it in a desperate effort to make it work, and failed.
@tonyfrench2574 Ignorance is bliss. Your ideas about Marx are inaccurate. Both Marx and Engels opposed dogmatism throughout their lives, never failing to criticize it when they observed it in others (same with utopianism).
The dictatorship of the proletariat was never intended as more than a temporary transitional phase immediately following the revolution that would put the working class in control of the means of production.
The ultimate goal was a classless society, meaning no group could have the power to act as an elite oppressing other classes.
Not too shabby,
1 month ago
@@mkq77How do you feel about the critique that Marxism is inherently materialistic but humans aren’t solely materialist beings. With his proposed abolitions of not only religion, but the family unit, morality, and justice as well, how would a Marxist society be worthwhile if human happiness does not solely depend on materialism?
Here's the LIE about Marxism/Socialism. The structure is the same as Capitalism, the only difference is that you are just exchanging the word "upper" for "ruling" or the words "upper class" for "the Party". Wen the Sandinistas rolled into Managua when Somoza and his cronies fled the country, the first thing they did was not to help the poor, by distributing food, but to grab the luxurious houses that had been left behind. During the Chavez regime the exclusive Country Clubs were not "Nationalized" and opened to the general public, but rather, Chavez became a member of the clubs, just another of the upper class that the Marxists so despise (so they say).
Yes, fj, chase out all the people that have made your country the modern state it is, and gave it the maintenance that infrastructure needs (Class Envy) and then watch how it fall apart because they cannot do the required maintenance, and then blaming OTHERS for their own incompetence and the situation they are in. Case in point, SA's increasing lack of drinking water.
Well, yes, they aim at achieving an identical goal, the difference being mainly the methods used for it's accomplishment. The very capitalist-centered Jacob Schiff of Kuhn-Loeb bank of N.Y. financed much of the prefatory Bolshevik activity before 1917, this with shipped-off gold in the thousands of pounds and by hosting Trotsky, etc. (A film clip shot by the sons of the pianist Leopold Godowsky show him clearly accompanied by Trotsky on a balcony. It was shot in c.1915, and constitutes living picture evidence of his presence here, at that time.)
"Global Amalgamated Inc." is THE ultimate goal of theirs. If events are viewed with this as kept in-mind, what is otherwise inscrutable will become not-so or less, at least. I am quite sure there is ONE desiring to sit in that corporation of ALL corporations director's chair.
. : .
The Bank information doesn't surprise me as Marxism is Semitic Jewish creation and movement, and Marx and Trotsky were both Jews, so were most of the radicals in the 50s (Ginsberg with the Beats) and 60s (Hoffman with the Yippies, and Bill Ayers with Bernadine Dohrn with the Weather Underground).
Exactly these godless edgy marxists worshippers are so deep into their own bs never realized the capitalist system they've come to hate and loathe is what sustains the world as we know it and nothing is gonna change that.
Hell even the first league of communist countries stopped adopting marxist-lennist-maoist economic policies. RUSSIA, CHINA, THE EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES THAT MADE UP THE WARSAW PACT ALL CURRENTLY UTILIZE FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES.
Marxists dream into dissolving everything into a classless utopia, what a load of shite. Deep down these kinds of individuals hate themselves basically any who believes in a nihilistic life sapping doctrine goes along the logcial lines of "oh you poor oppressed soul, life is evil and doesnt want you to succeed the system that these white fat happy chauvanistic capitalist people is meant to grind you down to your knees in order to exploit your cheap labour, therefore we must burn down the system this is the only way we can achieve justice and happiness for us if we cant live up to the good life well lets just make everyone else miserable then".
It might sound stupid and irrational but this abhorrent hole of morality in us have cannot be filled by the material pleasures of capitalism. We need strong values that resonates deep into our consciousness, all this anger, intolerance, and conflict is the result of what Nietszche called the death of God.
Deeply enough this thought kept me awake for nights on end. I tried looking for answers in philosophy in order to tackle this void we are currently facing yet what has the philosophical thinkers of the 19th century lead to? The greatest mass genocide we have seen in history. Nazis misapplication of Nietszche's Ubermencsh ideology the next step of man's evolution, that the herd must be sacrificed for the birth of this great individual and lesser races ought to be sterilized. Marx and his intellectually lazy communist doctrine expousing life is basically a power struggle between the burgeousie vs proleteriat that everything in the past 2000 years of established human history is utter garbage, equipped with this mindset Stalin and Mao amassed killing at least 40 to 60 million of their own people not to mention all the other millions where a communist revolution took place.
People are not ready for a world without God. Before we conducted ourselves according to the principles of heaven and hell, basically we are rewarded or punish for our actions, that there is an eternal moral and objective observer looking down to judge our daily lives. That is why philosophers like Kant wasnt so eager yet to dismiss the idea of God, for what then becomes our moral compass and bedrock of reason? Philosophers grant no answer to this dilemma.
Without the concept of an eternal judge floating over the heavens human beings become unhinged in their actions everything is now up for grabs in the politically correct name of egalitarianism and equality of all.
Jesus said I am the truth! Pontius Pilate says what is the truth? Consciousness is the truth "I think therefore I am" and life is the path of walking the uncertaintees of not knowing the whole truth. We dont boast to know universal truths but we do need a bedrock of knowledge in order to be grounded so we may not fall into the pit of nihilism where all actions are inevitably meaningless. We have power to better our lives, its only sad to see people have been convinced by envious persons that they are powerless.
We are the products of the universe whether people interpret that scientifically or spiritually we do have agency over ourselves the universe gave us the power to act the worst thing for us to do is not utilize that will to live life.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Excellent elucidation of the subject and an incredibly engaging speaker, thank you. As someone who spent time on the left and then centre left now is thoroughly disillusioned by the modern left it became more and more clear to me that the modern left is utterly shallow. It exists for one reason seek and gain power, that is it. There is no substance behind their policies and arguments and they fell into fallacy and unfalsifiable claims abandoning science and fact years ago. They don't even believe their own arguments which is why they never feel authentic and never have great answers - its hard when you think your own policies are BS
Power always corrupts, and absolute power always corrupts absolutely. Less government control will always yield a less corrupt outcome. It's simple logic
Hierarchy is the issue, not power. If you put a lot of power into a large body of people who have it equally-distributed among them, you can get good results. It's when that power is given to one or few people that corruption is worst. If you strip government of all power instead of horizontalize it, other powers fill the void: capitalist powers, megacorporations. Then those corporations establish a government of _their_ choosing, and exploit the situation through both market and government mechanisms. That's roughly our situation today.
@@Disentropic1 Bingo. It's simply a lesser of two evils and depending on which lens you view history from and which events you cherry pick from you can pick anything as the lesser evil. The accumulation of power in the hands of the few is consistently the driving force for social revolution. At least since the rise of Rome.
Marx created a philosophy that justified and validated his character flaws.
Truth and reason will always resurrect.
Shame its missing here- a classic eg of someone putting a little truth in with a lot of bs reframing arguments in their favour ,and followed by ignorant and stupid people
2:15 "wise benevolent leaders who assess the economy and distribute resources"; and due to human nature, they will distribute resources in their own favor. So main difference from capitalism is - HOW those leaders become leaders. In capitalism, people prove themselves as business leaders by running successful businesses. Under socialism - people who excel at inner party politics.
Brilliant. Made complete sense.
Yep, makes more sense than #socialism and #communism
Thx for this post! I hadn’t seen any Stephen Hicks material in a while. I enjoyed the clip so much I’m gonna watch the full lecture. 💯👌🏼
Socialism makes capitalism look good, crony capitalism makes Socialism look good
Clever and kinda true!
Late stage capitalism is purposely being simulated by people who want to bring about its collapse.
Crony capitalismo is socialism disguised as best as it possibly can
Postmodernism was a response a period of human history that lacked a history or critical basis for itself which was modernism. Constructs were treated as reality, meaning there is nothing outside of them. A human nature was being defined with absolutely no basis outside of being dominantly accepted as true which is not to say that there is no value in those dominant beliefs but that they are not the nature of humans. The message of postmodernism was that humans have no nature. To think humans have a nature and to strive to live up to it - as if it weren’t our nature - is to live a simulation of reality. Where postmodernism went wrong was thinking there was something wrong with the beliefs and values of modern society instead of just saying, they aren’t the only ones
Great lecture! Thanks for posting it.
What lecture ?
No quotes.
You never opened their books. You are lame af.
The interesting skip in every such secular argument is the decisive cultural aspect.
The communist nations were committed to science and atheism. The capitalists were overwhelmingly Christian in worldview. And those latter contexts led to all of the most humanizing achievements and movements in the modern world, the trajectory and progress having begun several centuries before the Enlightenment, and Industrial and Scientific Revolutions, came along.
Nonetheless, the Bolshevik Revolution obliterated all of it in the pursuit of a naturalistic, scientific, and religionless approach to moral society. Indeed, to this day, the communistic are the only purely secular societies ever to exist.
Why does the cultural aspect matter? And why is it decisive? Because worldviews directly inform and shape morals and values.
Now, consider the logical moral foundations and outcomes a purely naturalistic and secular worldview provides....
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
- Richard Dawkins
Now, the main reason as to why all of the several communist governments have been so barbarically oppressive and have remained wholly unrepentant is laid bare.
Thank you. Very great teacher
So good. I want a 3 hour version of this presentation.
Excellent
yes
Absolutely fascinating. He is absolutely correct.
At the end of the speech, he mentioned Mises. Mises had this figured out in 1920.
I like his analogy of a ‘faith crisis’ for what the Postmodern Left became. In the analogy he presents two polar chooses - A) go with evidence & reason, or B) deny evidence and reason because it’s emotional gripping… but I think there is a third option and I wonder, if some on the Left, are trying to do this. The third option is AB together - recognizing that *some* of the things I thought about my conceptual ideal (Religion) do not seem to bare out with evidence & reason; yet, it’s possible that the ultimate ideal is still valid, just not perfectly structured or correctly understood / interpreted.
Some of the basic premises of Marxism contain a truth even if the conclusions (ultimate outcomes) bore out. For example, in the Board game of Monopoly, a competitive game with finite resources - *every* game all the resources end up in the hands of one person. This is what Marx is pointing out; yet, it’s not what seems to play out in reality in the mono-structure (everything is ONE monopoly game). Instead, reality seems to be a multitude of Monopoly games where new games are entering all the time, some games are restarting, and some are dropping off / ending. The premise (that a self-interested competitive game with finite resources will end with one person winning all the resources) is TRUE but life is more complex as an enormous multitude of overlapping games that is dynamic in time means that you don’t see the ultimate outcome - life expressed as ONE game.
Now, I think the AB option in a ‘faith crisis’ is not to necessarily choose A or B but rather try to integrate success A+B. This is true for philosophy but also for religion - too many people live and play in the world where it’s either ALL True or ALL False.
Why couldn’t Hicks explain what Marx said were the contradictions of capitalism that would lead to its downfall? Given we are living though the deepest crisis since the Great Depression it should be important to show Marx wasn’t right about the present. The policy of capitalist governments around the world to this crisis is austerity, police state measures and preparations for major war signal they have no progressive solution and this is driving a renewed interest in socialism.
The identification of Stalinism with Marxism doesn’t bear scrutiny. Socialism-in-one-country was a rejection of Marx’s “workers of the world unite” which was the basis on which the October Revolution had been carried out.
The transformation of the Stalinist bureaucracy into a counter-revolutionary force was completed in 1933 when it aided and abetted the rise to power of fascism in Germany, then insisted its policies had been correct. The Left Opposition, under Trotsky’s leadership, had fought to unite German workers against the danger of fascism, whereas the Stalinist’s called the social-democrats “social fascists” (i.e. no different from the Nazis) and their slogan was “First Hitler, then us.”
The undermining of the Spanish Revolution and purges around the Moscow Trials from 1937 to 1938, when the Stalinists killed more Marxists than any regime in history, was the culmination of their crimes. The purges also involved the murder of up to 40,000 officers of the Red Army, including most of its top leadership, on false charge of conspiring with the Nazis to overthrow the regime. This paved the way for the Molotov-Ribbentrop/Stalin-Hitler pact and horrific devastation of World War Two.
How does the Marxist opposition to Stalinism fit into Hicks scheme?
On one detail to show the poor level of scholarship, at 8:16 Hicks says “The Marxist theory of World War One is its all the capitalist countries getting together and going to war over resources and what is going to happen is the capitalist countries are going to kill each or weaken each other and that is going to provide the space for the communism revolution of some sort to fill the vacuum.” No Marxists said this. The pre-war resolutions of the Second Internationals said that
“Should war break out nonetheless, it is their duty to intervene in favour of its speedy termination, and to do all in their power to utilise the economic and political crisis caused by the war to rouse the people and thereby to hasten the abolition of capitalist class rule.”
www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/10/lect-a10.html. “War and Revolution: 1914-1917”
Lenin called for turning the war into a civil war. Karl Liebkneckt in Germany, a leader of the SPD and the first parliamentarian there to vote against the war, said the main enemy was at home.
Rubbish . As he says it is claimed by Marxists to be scientific. Like all science it must be judged by the quality of its predictions . It is useless saying that at some unspecified future date capitalism will collapse, of course it will everything passes.
For those who don't want to read the long winded essay above, tjejojyj is basically saying "Hicks is wrong, because REAL Marxism hasn't been tried yet!"
“The policy of capitalist governments around the world to this crisis is austerity”
*Wrong, wrong, WRONG*
Listen to Warren G Hardings Republican Nomination acceptance speech and his inaugural address and look at his policies.
Your definition of Austerity is a joke, every major economic crisis on earth in capitalist nations comes about through an expansion of credit almost universally tied to an expansion of government debt by the lowering of interest rates, the complete opposite of Austerity.
The enemy is interest, nothing more, nothing less.
The problem with capitalism is that there is the tendency for economic power to be concentrated in private individuals while the problem with socialism/communism is that political and economic power is concentrated in the government. Can the capitalism be adjusted to produce equitable and sustained growth/development? Yes. All you need to check the excesses of capitalism is to have a government with a system of checks and balances enshrined in the constitution. Can socialism/communism be reformed to benefit the people? No, because in socialism/communism, economic and political might is concentrated in the government. Making the government absolutely powerful and we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any economic/political system that makes the government absolutely powerful will always fail. Always.
Now that's as succinct an explanation and historical review of Marxism as it gets. 👌👌👌
Matthew Thomas Lombardo Agreed!!!
It's confirmation bias you fucking imbeciles
its nonsense...marx was right
I believe this is a vast oversimplification of the historical reality, and that it presents a false dichotomy between "faith" (undefined) and reason. Very thin.
Private ownership and control of property, trade, distribution and the means of production.
Or...
Ownership and control of property, trade, distribution and the means of production by a centralised authority.
There is no "collective" ownership and control of property, trade, distribution and the means of production, because someone has to be in charge of what is "fair" as a means of preventing the successful from becoming too successful.
So which is more moral?
One is generative and the other degenerative.
The former does create massive disparity. Not fair?
The latter does create massive equality. Fair?
In the former, the poor get obesity, flat screens and a car while they move towards the middle class.
In the latter, they get societal and economic collapse and starvation.
So socialists. Is it the poor, or the disparity that is really the issue?
If the socialist is honest, then it's the disparity that's the issue, because the poverty and starvation that socialism endlessly creates barely gets a mention, while they scream and rampage in indignation against the rich.
Terry O'Brien I think that Jordan Peterson touched on this when he noticed what was fundamentally wrong with Marxists: They don’t love the poor, they just hate the rich. Those aren’t the same thing, and a personal philosophy centered around hating someone else, whatever the reason, is a rotten philosophy.
Peterson was paraphrasing Orwell.
Success illuminates failure, and that leads to immense resentment.
I'd heard of this idea before, but it was Peterson that really distilled it...or Nietzsche that Peterson quoted.
" "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge"-thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not"-thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamour!"
You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamours thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy-perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers-erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge."
- Nietzsche.
Terry O'Brien I’ve always found the concept of justice to be interesting, as I don’t think that humans can ever truly achieve “proper” justice, as its almost always steeped in the concept of “revenge.” It’s a little more complicated than that, obviously, but this certainly seems to be the case with what is perceived to be “Social Justice,” which is almost entirely predicated on wreaking vengeance on those you perceive to be oppressing you.
In other words, it’s not about building yourself up, it’s about tearing everyone else down, and bringing them to your level.
... Oh crap. I *_just_* realized this was Father’s primary issue in Fullmetal Alchemist: he doesn’t try to bring himself to god’s level, he literally drags god down to his. What a trip.
You might like this then.
Nietzsche on equality, SJWs and virtue posturing.
"Behold, this is the hole of the tarantula. Do you want to see the tarantula itself? Here hangs its web; touch it, that it tremble!
There it comes willingly: welcome, tarantula! Your triangle and symbol sits black on your back; and I also know what sits in your soul. Revenge sits in your soul: wherever you bite, black scabs grow; your poison makes the soul whirl with revenge.
Thus I speak to you in a parable-you who make souls whirl, you preachers of equality. To me you are tarantulas, and secretly vengeful. But I shall bring your secrets to light; therefore I laugh in your faces with my laughter of the heights. Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.
The tarantulas, of course, would have it otherwise. "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge"-thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not"-thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!"
You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamours thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy-perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers-erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge."
I don't exactly know if that would equate them to communists? Granted, I'm not well-versed on Native American societies, aside from the fact that they were not the "noble savages" that Hollywood wanted to paint them as (they killed each other, like, a lot. Over just as trivial of things that whitey did, no less) But they didn't engage in Captialism, beforehand. I think they employed a type of bartering system that worked because they were mostly made up of small, connected communities. The people IN the communities didn't resent one another, just those from other tribes, for whatever reasons.
The simple fact of the matter is that I think if Communism were to be viable, it would have to be amongst a much smaller society. A "Country," I don't think, could ever exist as far as Communism goes. I'm not even sure a State would. It just doesn't seem to be feasible.
Kierkegaard reasoned that until one takes the leap over to the position of faith in that which is above materiality, into the metaphysical reality of the spirit, thinking continues to go around in circles from relativism to absolutism and everywhere in between. Without the realization and conviction of the omniscient and omnipotent figure called god, one is left with making embarrassing pronouncements like, "There is no such thing as absolute truth." Faith does not belong to the purview of the rational mind and at its apogee of human value, rationality can only point away to the need for the next level of consciousness in faith. Robert Frost, arguably the most read poet of the 20th century and four-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize was asked about his poetic technique and how he managed to be so prolific a poet, specifically how he made his poetry work... and his simple but elegant reply was, "You believe it in." When he would sit down to write, many times all he had was the belief that a poem would evolve because he had the faith in the poetic human consciousness, not necessarily in objective reality.
The only thing that is real here is, "Faith does not belong to the purview of the rational mind."
What happened to the rest of the lecture?
Money and equity will never make you happier than freedom will.
You should never want government to control more of your life, rich or poor. You should never desire servitude over autonomy at any price.
That's exactly right. That's why I have such a soft spot for the libertarians. I'm not one, but their hearts are in the right place. Our ruling class, whether democratically elected, or selected by God as emperor, should have a bare minimum of power over the individual. Wishing for more regulations, equity, handouts, etc. is a cultural deathwish.
I would argue his take on socialism is a little simplified. Broadly speaking there are three types of socialism:
1. Social Democrates: grew out of the European labour union movement in the 1880s, and wanted a more just distribution of wealth. Captilasm is fine, but its excesses both high and low need to be curbed by gov't intervention in a mixed economy (free market in some areas, but also progressive income taxastion, legal regulations of the market, and social welfare programs to combat unemployment and poverty), and no revolutions.
2. Democratic Socialism: More in line with the Paris Commune attempt in the 1820s. Establish socialism through democratic means, but nationalise as much as possible to maximize employment and put the economy under democratic control. Peaceful political revolutions.
3. Communism: capitalism can't be reformed, democracy is a con, religion and popular entertainment are opium for the masses. Violent revolution is not only necessary but inevitable. Marx focused on proletariat (educated industrial workers) as agents of revolution, Moa Zedong and Pol Pot focused more on rural farmers.
Your take is the obvious one of an american undergraduate student.
@@paddleed6176 Mad because he's right 🤡🤡🤡
Self evident my good man.
It's honestly all just different flavors of the same ice cream.
A few things. You forgot flavor 4, Fascism/Nazism. That one was "we believe in the paradise promised by Socialism, but the obvious failure in Russia has to be explained. Our explanation is that only our superior ethnicity is capable of properly enacting the Socialist strategy, so we'll eschew international Socialism in favor of a nationalistic Socialism".
It's also not much of a critique to say that a 20 minute video didn't do a deep dive into every flavor of Socialism. It focused on the arguments that apply to, at a minimum, all international Socialism. There's no point in deconstructing every variant from Syndicalism on down when it's simply an origin story for Post-Modernism.
Where can I see the rest of this talk?
This is all great, except it costs $33 for a sandwich right now and no one under the age of 30 is ever going to own a home ever again and the population is collapsing due to people electing not to have children because they are scared it’ll impoverish them and/or they prefer a hedonistic lifestyle centred on temporary pleasure. The populations across the western world are declining at extinction rates and are already being enthusiastically displaced by people from the third world who have absolutely zero interest in carrying on any of the systems or institutions that define western liberal democracy.
Socialism tends to require great force and cruelty to impose, but sadly some of those predictions may actually come true, even if delayed by a century and a half. In the grand scheme of time, they might seem to have been perfectly prognosticated. People are depleting their scant savings to compensate for insanely inflated costs of groceries and housing, hoping something will come along to correct the course. Meanwhile, social security and Medicare programs are unsustainable because the top-heavy population is consuming unprecedented resources as they live longer and drag their wealth with them to the grave. Wages have been stagnant for decades and home prices have almost tripled relative to income. The middle class is cascading into poverty while a poverty class of migrants continues to flood across the border with no end in sight. So the effect is going to be tens of millions of new poor people and extreme concentrations of wealth for the few who own “the means of production”.
None of this means communism is a solution. Nothing in history comes close to suggesting that communism would solve any of this. If anything, “equalising” the population would require pretty much everyone to be poorer than they are right now. It also doesn’t mean “capitalism” has failed. It just means that we have been ineffective stewards of the economy and resources and *we* have failed. Either way, this video is on track to age very poorly in the next 5-10 years.
I agree. This speaker is either biased or dishonest.
@@messier8714 or this video came out before the entire world economy collapsed into survival mode and everything got turned upside down.
The problems you describe are called democracy and state sponsored corporatism / socialism.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing 👍
I love his pace, most of the IDW, especially Shapiro, talk 100x faster and I always have to slow them down.
IDW?
JudoMateo intellectual dark web, thinkers like: Eric & Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, and others of the like.
Logocentric Sounds like a name given by the Ministry of truth to me.
JudoMateo well I certainly wouldn’t use that’s as a basis for understanding other people’s ideas...
@@logocentric9183 "thinkers"
As someone who is not a marxist, but studied the original works of Marx. The superficial understanding of this gentleman is surprising to me. I’m glad that I met Professor Boland in SFU and he showed us the right approach to study Marx (he also was not a Marxist). This guy is describing a very particular interpretation of Marx. This is by no means shared by many left Marxist. Of course, the left of today has nothing to do with the original socialist movement.
In the first 5 minutes and 30 seconds he reviews exactly what is happening in the real world !
i am in south africa...we have the highest levels of inequality. the middle class initially increased but is decreasing. the working class\prolieteriat is increasing, unemployment is increasing. the middle class will dwindle with job losses and emigration, the rich will decrease. in the end we will have a few rich and a very large proliterat.
Explained by an x kgb guy in 1983, few listened, here is is lecture. Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society (Complete) m.ruclips.net/video/5gnpCqsXE8g/видео.html
So on the left one must have commitment to the party. Not my cup of tea. I live to provide for and protect my family and their future.
When the horse starts smelling bad and is covered with flies it might be a good idea to stop beating it.
To try to break any of this down without first thoroughly dissecting the times is apathetic. Everyone on the right, the left and in between seem to do it. The effects on the world from the Napoleonic Wars, the beginnings of the early industrial revolution, the forms of economic hierarchy as well as economic theories in Russia, Central Europe, France and Brittain, and the United States, as well as the population growth experienced at the end of the 17th and beginnings of 18th centuries are all tremendously important to understand. You cannot dissect capitalism, socialism, Marxism etc without diving into all of that first.
We should be factual and explain context, not characterize bad people as bad simply for the popularity and ease with which you can do so. We should be thorough in understanding these things even if only for the sole purpose of not allowing things which have happened in the past to occur again. This guy is doing a great job of showing you exactly how most opponents to Marx, who deserves more opposition than most in economic history, fail to explain why his theories were faulty and became evil, and were used to do some of the most evil things in history. And it's all because most people don't care enough to really sit down and learn about it, they just want to feel educated and pat themselves on the back for reaching the same conclusion as those who really wish to know the extremely deep details of the arguments and historical contexts.
This creates overgeneralization and mischaracterization, which creates a reaction within or the further growth of that which you failed to understand in the first place. In other words, not truly understanding the thing helps further / grow the thing itself.
A few weeks ago, I re-read the Communist Manifesto for the first time in about 35 years. I have to say that it was strikingly postmodernist in its tone. More than anything, it seemed to me like an extended gish gallop, with schoolboy hyperbole and the blithest non-sequitur as its stock-in-trade. The experience was very much like what happened when I tried to read Zizek.
I read it in my early 40s and I was so disappointed. It's a petulant little brochure that is unbelievably vague. I was hoping to get a clear understanding of how communists thought. I thought it was going to be a blueprint. Instead it was just an angry little rant that was vague in the rant and vague in its suggestions, suggestions that lasted about two pages. I thought it was going to be their vision of how to run society but it wasn't at all. It was mostly just complaints about society. I tried to read it in historical context because I'm sure life at the bottom of the totem pole was much worse back then so I understood the frustration, but it was still the most low resolution thinking ever.
@@jasondashneyThe Communist Manifesto is supposed to be read by all types of people, not necessarily the philosophers. If you want a solid grasp of Marxism that doesn't have much ambiguity, you should read The German Ideology, Das Kapital, Anti-Dühring by Engels etc.
@@egezort perhaps I will get it on audiobook. I just don’t have time to read longform books anymore. I didn’t realize it was about more than just money complaints. Thanks.
I've read this guy's book on post-modernism. Excellent book.
People of the world: spice up your life! AHHH! Now, seriously. Watch Hicks' talk complete. It is very, very good and very well explained. I really recommend it.
Great perspectives here imo but the oversimplification of socialism and the history is kind of wild. There’s much more nuance not mentioned. Part of the reason the US and capitalistic societies recovered from the depression and ww2 was because of socialist/marxist ideals, like the new deal, etc. Also this blending of ideology is what helped communism survived to the modern day after the fall of the USSR. Like china embracing a more open/capitalist driven economic system.
He's also a blatant liar. None of the predictions of marxism he talks about were predictions made by marxism.
Not all socialist ideas are Marxist. The New Deal was not Marxist. Marxism is explicitly revolutionary and dialectical. It is the dialectic that was disproven by the depression.
On the other hand, many scholars have argued the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression. In spite of failing over and over again, socialism survives not because it is effective or has potential. It survives because it holds the promise of allowing certain people to have power over other people. Strip away all the platitudes and the slogans. When put into practice, leftism is always and forever strictly about the sick desire of some people to wield power over one's fellows.
OH GOD it is well done presentation!
Sadly none of them "intellectuals" opened their books and it shows 😂
only if youre ignorant .lol
There's 20 minutes I'll never get back. The focus on postmodernism is what prompted me to spend this time on this video. I think you can assume a lot of the audience know and understand the history (the majority of the video): take the last minute and develop that. You've not addressed the main focus of your talk (unless this is the preamble of a longer talk).
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Democracy is a pipe dream until everyone has a good education not the shit we get today in the west. When i say good i mean in political ideology and its history
Economic equality of results is not rooted in reality.
This guy glosses over 100 years of progressive movements and reforms that forced capitalists to share more of the wealth, thus saving capitalism from itself.
So were those "progressives" Marxists?
Thank you!
15:36-18:39
That perfectly sumrise my journey. I chose rationality.
Thanks PhilosophyInsights. Quality content as always
To say religious people abandon reason is a bridge too far, but his points politically are well presented.
As soon as i heard "the middle class is getting bigger" i knew he was full of it. How do we define "middle class?" They are up to their eyeballs in debt, that's how.
Explains why I hate postmodernism.
Only those who have willingly turned their backs on facts could dislike this video.
Are u sure about that
Or youre ignorant or stupid and really dont know much about political ideology and its history of which you sound like a classic, probably usa american as they are the most ignorant and stupid
"Marx's idea of scientific socialism boils down to this: God help you if you're not a scientist."
- Mikhail Bakunin
Just bought his book on Amazon. Time to go DEEEEEEEP!
Never found the citations for those "marxist predictions," did ya? Fabricated.
I love your way of argument.
Dr. Hicks work is outstanding, his book "Explaining Postmodernism" is a must read. The only conclusion I would disagree with is that you have to pick reason or faith( min 18), in my opinion the two actually compliment each other. The real question is, are you relying only on materialism to explain our existence or do you accept materialism to drive the mechanism of science in understanding the natural law but use faith or philosophy to understand our existence, especially how we ought to conduct our lives with each other. In an enlightenment society we rally around natural law but give faith its place in society on an individual rights basis with the further acknowledgment that a moral society is necessary for democracy to sustain itself. I believe our constitution and the bill of rights struct just about the best balance between the two that could be accomplished. As a believer I'm grateful the idea of separation of church met the challenge to was keep the government out of religious institutions and to keep religious institutions out of government. But, the genius of the founders was to allow the societal underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian worldview to act as our cultural foundation.
That book Is trash. Your hero Is a hack :)
It has become clear to me that Judeo-Christian is an Oxymoron.
What a great lecture. Easy to listen to and convincing argument
He's simply lying. Those wrong marxist predictions he talks about never happened.
Related to this is the Marxist narrative in the Civil Rights Movement. In the early 1950's, the NAACP in Montgomery, Alabama felt comfortable to train Rosa Parks in civil disobedience without fear that she would be tortured, raped and executed. Contrast that with the shocking oppression of Stalinist USSR. No doubt the segregated South was very unjust, but it was still more humane than Marxist countries. However, that does not fit into the Marxist narrative, so civil rights mythology has been created to fit the Marxist narrative. Yes, some protesters were killed during the Civil Rights struggle, but it was at the hands of isolated criminals, not the government. Civil RIghts history has been mythologized to fit the Marxist narrative.
Thats rubbish - Black Panthers murdered by the state. Nina Simone incarcerated by CIA. I would also argue Malcolm x , MLK will have been orgainised CIA killings.
MKultra
lmao seriously? The police weren't racist? Wow.
True reason cannot relies on universal truths. It knew when to embrace relativism and when not.
Marx made an excellent scientific analysis of capitalism as it existed at the time.
he didn't include in his analysis the sort of feed back loop that takes place in a democracy that led to the modern social democratic state, because it hadn't happened yet.
if we were to follow Marx example we would continue to look at the world as it is and follow the facts where they lead us.
anytime someone holds up a book that someone else wrote and says "this is what I believe"maybe you should read the book he's holding but you shouldn't listen to him
Get this man a tailor
The problem with the opening is he summarises and misrepresented the situation so fundamentally that future discussion will be tainted. One must separate Marx into two people . One the critique of capitalism in Das Capital and the other the revolutionary in Communist Manifesto. Point three is incorrect . Capitalism will constantly crash due to internal contradiction , the paradox of needing to dampen wages to increase profitability which in turn decreases profitability because there is less spare income.
This often happens in modern universities that have become ideological . The point above is a key issue with capitalism and Marx correctly modelled that the system will continuously reinvent until the people choose something different.
I didn’t bother to look further given such a fundamental error means the lecturer is either incompetent or has an agenda or both.
On an aside - Modernity is what caused Post Modernism .
He lies continuously throughout. Claiming that marxists were making predictions about middle class shrinking and upper class as if these are terms marxists even endorse. Pure ignorance, pure capitalist propaganda, not even well crafted.
Yup. I did listen further. He commits a common math error, (wrongly) assuming a common denominator. Not having revealed the basis of his his numerical claims, it is equally plausible that what he claims as the success of capitalism, might actually be the success of slavery, followed by a freed-slave economic class, followed by externalization of slavery (Chinese etc people earning American pennies), concurrent with downward pressurized near-slaves of working class Americans who lose their health care, if they leave their jobs.
The false denominator is his failure to include foreign workers’ inputs in the total population. When you add to the denominator, the 2- 3 billion extremely poor workers in Asia (China, India, etc) who support the apparent affluence of the American middle class, what you have is a vanishing percentage of middle class Americans. Instead of, say, ~70% of the population being middle class, the 200M middle-class Americans represent about 10% of the total population producing the apparent wealth of America. His is, mathematically, externalizing the costs of the American economy, while internalizing its “profit.” His data is fraudulent.
As his lecture continues, his arguments devolve into fantastical rhetoric, fully abandoning any academic legitimacy, to make a political point that agrees with his ideological bias. He also takes the least generous interpretation of the history of socialism (dictatorships, actually) and compares them to the most favourable interpretation of the most favourable example of capitalism, American Capitalism, when it is/was highly regulated and taxed, and completely ignoring the social injustices that were present (the genocide of black and indigenous peoples).
Total waste of time, if what you were looking for was facts, rather than propaganda.
As someone once said "It'll work better next time". And "It's not that sort of Marxism..." and "If I could do it, I'd do it better...". Etc.
The subject matter of this lecture is very ideological, covering little in terms of historical events or data and referencing 0 primary accounts. I don't have a problem with people voluntarily paying for this, but it strikes me as odd that conservatives would appreciate it after having railed against the liberal equivalent so aggressively for so long. If all you wanted was increased representation in universities, that's cool, but don't hate on the other side for doing its thing.
Why did this happen in such a big scale now and not 1000 years before?
It is because of surplus resources, the massively improved living conditions for most.
if you got a good education and knew history and ideology and listened to others apart from liberals like hicks with an agenda you would answer your own question
Capitalism brings out the worst and best in humans.
Socialism and Marxism only bring out the worst in humans.
Choose the lesser of two evils like China and Russia did. They eventually had to choose capitalism.
Well done on demonstrating you have never read any of Marx’s works directly. Give his Foundation (Grundrisse) notebooks a go, as they are the most in-depth analysis of money. Unlike most studies by political economists and ‘economists’, Marx does not stop at a single ‘definition’ of money, but examines how money has evolved over time from (1) a means of exchange, through (2) being a measure of value, (3) a store of value (a horde), (4) a catalyst to activity, and (5) a means of commanding the labour of others. His analysis showed that money is not a part of ‘nature’ but a developing form of social relationships - it had a birth time and place, a youth, adulthood, and is now it old age, becoming more and more fictions in its attempts to control human activity, an activity which is bursting at the seems to escape the controls of money.
@@doctormcgrail Well done on demonstrating the most profound level of ignorance and stupidity possible by anyone claiming to be a subhiman. It took less than one sentence of your drivel for anyone to know not to waste an additional precious second of their time on this pile of mind numbing waste.
And quit pretending that you're a doctor. You're an embarrassment to anyone who holds credentials.
@@doctormcgrail Marxis' work is incoherent trash. Anyone trumpeting that rubbish is an ideologically possessed, weak-minded hurd animal and puppet for totalitarian, elitist, monopolistic, genocidal maniacs.
@@doctormcgrailSpewing word salads and proving zero understanding of capitalism
And the middle class has been squeezed out in to nothingness as in what is going on right now.
Much of his argument is laid on sand as he asserts that Marxism makes "moral" claims, and that the reduction of poverty contradicts the basic tenets of Marxism, both of which display a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism. Even if poverty were entirely dispelled from the planet, the antagonisms of inequality will always remain as long as the income disparity between the richest and poorest remains as extreme as it is. Mr Hicks is well spoken, and evokes authority, so I am going to guess that he's never lived in a working class area nor had major financial problems in his life. Sadly, this renders his perspective woefully incomplete. The New Left were/are a disaster though. They have helped to dismantle the genuinely progressive elements of Marxism, and the disparity between the rich and the poor has never been so great. Instead of focusing on how to successfully transform the economic base, they unknowingly carry out the bidding of multi-national corporations, unified by a religion called identity.
Peter Hastie I did think it was incredibly strange how he kept referencing this ‘moral Marxist claim’, since Marx never makes any claim to morality in all of his work
@@corinaHojan it’s an implicit moral claim...clearly.
the new left abandoned the working class since they were recruiting among the petty-bourgeois and specially oppressed ( identity ) intellectuals
Marxism is based on secular morality of equality and fairness. Exploitation is a moral concept.
@@trainof The fact that one person is born to wealth and another to poverty within the same society causes class conflict, which is the primary source of conflict within society. To eliminate that is not a moral principle, it is a rational one.
After watching this completely, though, I was deeply disappointed by the lack of message.
what? the middle class is not getting bigger in the US!
This is the first lecture I've listened to, maybe it will come in another lectures, but where is mention of the Frankfurt School?
I'd like to see some data actually proving what Hicks says at 5:00 or so.The middle class in 2018 is clearly shrinking and the super rich are pulling away from everyone else at faster speeds. It's true that Americans earn more in raw numbers than they did a century ago, but the cost of living is so much greater now than it was then that the category of 'poverty' would have to be changed, in absolute terms, to reflect these economic changes. I'd nevertheless agree with Hicks that socialists have failed to provide a real alternative to capitalism, and that wealth redistribution hasn't been proven to reverse poverty rates.
The change seems to have happened around the 50s, where his analysis conveniently stops. How rational of him to do so, but hardly impartial.
Open4991 what? Do you think that every one needs to be “super rich”? Are you a child? Maybe you could be a super something else! What is it with you people to think that everyone can be super at everything? How about a super artist or musician, or golfer? Good grief, get your sh XX together and aim at something that gives your life meaning. You can do that in the USA now more than ever thanks to the super rich Bill Gates and Steve Jobs! Count your lucky stars instead of other people’s pocketbooks!
E Pruden Can you maybe slow down a minute and consider that I'm not a Marxist? I said as much in my very first post. It doesn't bother me on a personal level that other people are richer than I am, and I'm pretty okay with where my life is, really. Like Jordan Peterson says, however: massive income disparities create chaos for a society, and that's really my concern, here. I want to create a safe, stable, healthy society, and I'm interested to see if there are ways of doing that that haven't been tried recently. I should point out to you that we had higher employment rates before Microsoft existed than we do today, so I'm not seeing how I owe Bill Gates much of anything, other than fees for a renewal of my office suite subscription.
I'd say that a solid argument can be made that the situation at hand came into being as things went towards the very structures and policies that claim capitalism would cause this. As they gained in power and popularity, as their policy shifts were implemented, we get the shifts they predicted. Odd points of data that. My view of it is, take Capitolism as your base, apply the minimum level of social programs needed and maintain a government that both can and will intercede to keep opportunities to get into the economy open and keep corporate power levels in check. The people and corporations will be more than capable of keeping government power in check as it stands. I would wager that a lack of government regulation on corporate power aimed specifically at keeping opportunities open rather then curtailing behavior is at least part of what is going awry here. Social programs have value only in their ability to increase the number of productive law abiding citizens per capita. Everything else is self destructive. Government regulation and intervention on the market only has value if it maintains competition. (Ergo if the banks have fucked up, you do not bail them out. If you feel compelled to do so? Not without massively shackling the kind of behavior that got them into this mess as the price they pay for this failure.) On occasion you will have economic bubbles and letting the air out of them is another function that on occasion the government (or preferably an open, honest new media focused on reporting the facts and informing the public!) must do.
I don't want a handout, I want access to competitive education, training and the chance to make a living wage. Every time a government program fills in for a problem, the root isn't addressed. Bailing water out of a boat only works for so long if you don't find the leak before it widens.
I really don't think apples are being compared with apples when compared to what people had to endure and cope with in the past relative to today. Namely as people are so privileged today they take so many things as a given or granted. From food to basic sanitation. That people used to need to fix things in the past because unlike today they couldn't hope to afford a new product than compared to what is offered today. That every night, especially during the weekend, young adults are spending stupid amounts of money on booze. This doesn't suggest to me as a society we are struggling. Though some arguments can be made I more usually notice that peoples circumstances are based on poor life choices. That this to me doesn't appear a problem of the economy than compared to short sightedness. Not something I really care to nanny for. That you make your own bed in life.
"We choose truth over facts" tells you pretty much all you need to know. Thanks Uncle Joe.
His understanding of Marx's work is faulty. Too focused on The Communist Manifesto because Das Kapital would be too hard for him to read.
We need to agree on ONE TERM to describe all of this. The enemy must be identified by name so that people can be aware it exists and discuss what to do about it. Post modernism, identity politics, intersectionality, relativism, political correctness, secular globalisation, etc. is too much.
Wokism
blame the evil right wing fu*kwits then
He leaves out two HUGE historical facts that alter the story:
1. The industrialists violently resisted the labor movement, but the labor movement proved successful.
2. The US (and, I assume, other Western nations) introduced anti-trust laws to break up the overwhelming monopolies that grew in the late 1800s.
Each of these helped to prevent Marx’s predictions. I am not a Marxist, but this guy is deliberately warping the story.
One more: Like the Soviets who smashed democracy in Hungary Czechoslovakia, the US toppled democratic moves toward socialism in Guatemala and Chile and installed cruel dictators. Question: What does that do for the faithful believers in US altruism?
Answer: Your history professor will not mention these events so your snowflake soul won’t be troubled by them.
You got any evidence?
During the cold war both sides resorted on installing their puppets on various states.
They even held proxy wars, like Vietnam.
Yes the US was shameless and more open about it.
My country spiralled in a civil war of power.
Although we lost a lot by staying with the allies the country has always been in better shape than it's former commie neighbours.
You guys really think you are the good guys..
1. So marxists prediction was wrong.
2. So? Nothing to do with the presentation. This lecture isn’t about how the cia stopped socialist governments to commit genocides in replacement for other cruel pseudo fascist dictatorships. Nobody here is denying it happened.
Hick's is so much easier to digest than JBP.