Відео

Prof Brooks- renumerationd to poor countries that lifted them

Sound is terrible. America doesn't deserve more kids. It does even before a terrible horrible job in supporting families supporting family leave child care child the list is long and Corporate greed. Would say more.

Women (getting ready for a first date): "I hope he's 6'4, with 6-pack abs, drives a nice car, has a nice house, makes a nice paycheck, and is good to my kids...." Men (getting ready for a first date): "I hope she's not insane...."

We need protection of all humans life from moment of conception.

Harvard and the AAI 20 years behind the frontier. With Harvard's reputation these days, probably all ripped off from Charles Goodhart, who was writing about this topic on Project Syndicate in the early 2000s.

The quality of sound is not good.

Capitalism is basically a euphemism for selfishness.

@29:56 it's income or production value/per capita, not GDP, that determines personal welfare. @38:49 how do you control for self-selection bias? 43% of first-time marriages end in divorce, with financial and emotional consequences for all parties, including any children. what to do about divorce laws across jurisdictions, especially in non-western countries? what about single motherhood? and divorced mothers? better than no motherhood?

Nothing to Worry. 60K years ago only 1000 people came out of Africa & populated the entire Earth.

44:00 "child seats lower firtility" probably because more child seats is co-related with more well-off people, who have less kids, any way The last part of the talk was very disappointing. out of touch, European and Scandanavian countries have shown that better Pateral Leave and other benefits do not improve birth rate Lack of Marriages is a cultural issue, no policy and tax reduction will budge that. I wanted to see what the future would look like when lower population, to be honest, I did not get a good picture here. I am not convinced that Economic growth is important, Japan was been pretty much stagnant for more than 20 decades, still you can argue that the living conditions haven't done down much. The point he made about US unable to pay for US carrier groups, in case of war. War with who ? Africa. He clearly demonstrated how US has a better birth rate than most countries like Russia, China.

What's the point of even having kids, if the job market will be a ghost town in 20 years, thanks to AI?

Too much Christian brainwashing for science. When we are dead, we are dead. Like ants on an ant mound when a boot heels smashes it.

Brooks: socialism is bad i love capitalism, what a dummy

Great lecture, very informative!

Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched 23:40

Countries of networked coos.

Thank you RD.W

First you must define the capitalism, socialism and comunism. After that you can comment.

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 not fired 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.

Thank you so much, Dr. Franks! After multiple failures in understanding the Waste Land, your video piqued my interest in Eliot again.

Columbus already knew about N.A. Why do you think he demanded rulership of any newly discovered land? Vikings were here 500 years before Columbus.

Great video with a recap of muslik history. Real underrated.

Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness. (Allah-one/indivisible/loving/self-sufficient/infinite perfection).

extremely informative, thank you!

French Revolution as "historical drama inflicted by narcissism" - so clese, because there is one small step left to...... psychopathy,, Narcissism is impulsive, cold (suit) psychopathy plans in realm so evil (likie hidden totalitarianism) that it is unimaginable for us.

Very important messages. Thank You. For a long time, the Academy "hid" the existence of Madame de Staël as well as Benjamin Constant in order to conceal the usurpation of uctite (psychological, soft) totalitarianism, called by Constant "usurpation" for lack of another term.

Entire mountains disappear? Never heard of US coal mining, where entire mountain tops are blown off?! Pigs floating down river? Never heard of the massive factory farm run-off that has turned the Gulf of Mexico into a cesspool and a deadzone?! Yes, compare the theoretical benefits of one system to the actual problems of another - a long standing and utterly deceitful practice of conscious or unconscious Sophistry and sheer propaganda.

The critiques of corporatist apologetics and ideologues could go on and on, but listening to such drivel sickens me too much to keep watching this video, despite Richard Wolff's refreshing honesty and lucidity and courage - a video which I now have to turn off, or else throw up. But one last point: Professor Richard Wolff already stated clearly and repeatedly that there are least three different kinds of socialism; and the millions of deaths caused by Stalin and Mao are the result of only one of the three forms of socialism, which is authoritarian state socialism - which I, along with Chomsky, would not call socialism at all. As Chomsky said, Socialism, if it neans anything, means worker control - but giving a few political elites total or near total power, is not worker control, and therefore is not socialism: it's just another form of oligarchy, elite rule, domination and submission, and empire. There is no true socialism in it. It's state capitalism, which is simply another form of oligarchy, tyranny and empire, best left to go the way of the dinosaur. But again, in terms of imminent critique, look in the mirror, I say to the apologists and ideologues of corporate capitalism: precisely this neoliberal and increasingly neofeudal corporatist empire turns entire countries into labour camps. Listen to Bruce Cockburn, Canada's Bob Dylan, in his song, Call It Democracy. He'll clarify what should have been self-evident to everyone, all along.

One more point: to the question posed by the “moderator”, who clearly is on the neoliberal corporatist cheerleading team: Surely a business can’t be run by employee plebiscite?! Rebuttal: Fallacious reductio ad absurdum straw man argument, similiar to the fallacious straw man arguments of Professor Brooke, once again equating authoritarianism with socialism, as if an anti-authoritarian socialism, which Professor Wolff already presented as a perfectly viable and proven successful alternative, is an impossibility and unimaginable. But more to the point: Yes, some people are better at management - but they can be elected by democratic worker cooperatives, by the workers themselves, rather than hired by a basically totalitarian corporate elite and board of directors. Can anybody say, Duh! ?

Crony capitalism in Latin America? Typical racist imperialist trope. Also decades out of date, in many nations here in the South, to the extent that it was accurate in the past. And look in the mirror! How does the "liberal democratic", "leading", "developed", "First World" operate? It's been ruled by oligarchy, monopoly capitalism, and crony capitalism, for over a century, since the time of Rockefeller in the late 1800s, and before, from the time of the first multi-national corporation, the British East India Company, which was founded in the year 1600! See Adam Smith on that. He was perfectly frank. This is either staggering ignorance, or staggering deceit - there is no other rational analysis of such glaring omissions, distortions or obfuscations. Which is it, brother? Are you a willing pawn, or simply an ignorant ideologue?

A further rebuttal to Professor Brookes, just written and published now: ATTENTION: RICHARD WOLFF jtoddring.wordpress.com/2024/01/30/socialism-capitalism-corporatism-the-future-of-humanity-ideology-vs-reality/

The libertarian socialist model that Profession Wolff presented here, or one version of it, rooted in grassroots economic democracy, workplace democracy, and worker cooperatives is decidedly not theoretical. Are you unaware, Professor Brookes, of the centuries-old co-op model, which is now wide-spread in the US and around the world, which is very successful, and growing fast? Are you unaware, ignorant, that is, of the Spanish Revolution, which was largely anarchist, libertarian socialist, and which very successfully ran an advanced, modern industrial society, while under the extreme pressures and duress of fighting a war against the fascists, and their Communist and "liberal" Western oligarch supporters? And are you likewise ignorant of the Mondragon Co-op in Spain, which was founded by two brothers only a few decades ago, and which now has become one of the biggest and most successful corporations in all of Europe? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you are not a conscious liar and propagandist, one must conclude that you are, quite simply, stunningly ignorant of the facts of history and political-economy, both. Response? My apologies for the ferocity. It is nothing personal. It is simply a matter of 99% of the eight billion human beings on Earth being suffocated, squeezed, held down, boot on the neck, exploited, preyed upon and degraded, or worse, by a predatory and parasitic, truly vampiric system of neo-feydal corporate empire. This has to change. And the time is now.

Socialism, Capitalism, Corporatism, & The Future Of Humanity: Ideology vs Reality A few thoughts on this generally excellent discourse, between Professors Brookes and Wolff To Professor Wolff: Bravo - brilliant crystalization. To Professor Brookes: Great respect for your human decency and moral sentiment of basic justice and compassion, certainly, but are you not aware of the famous quote from Mark Twain? "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." Unconscious ideologues unconsciously pick narratives and statistics that suit their cognitive and emotional bias, their ideology, filtering out discomforting statistics, facts, perspectives and evidence, unconsciously, like dogmatic religious fundamentalists, to suit their ideological bias. In short, your stats are bogus. Read the Davos Report, by Oxfam. Five billion people lost a trillion dollars in the past four years alone, while the richest eight individuals on Earth now control more wealth than the poorest half of humanity. (Who do I trust more, by the way, the most respected international development organization on Earth, Oxfam, or a professor from the Kennedy School, which was founded by the same Rockefeller clan that founded the WEF as the leading centre of the Western oligarchy? Not a difficult choice. But that is an aside.) The wealth is being sucked up by the top 1%, while poverty grows and inequality skyrockets - and we are now clearly moving into an era of neo-feudalism as a result. And worse, the oligarchs know this will be unpopular and will provoke popular uprising, which is why they are now resorting to fascism. See my essay, The Failure Of Propaganda & The Resort To Fascism. But in short, the facts disprove your trickle down, rising tide, Polyanna / Dr. Pangloss, neoliberal apologist view - and it's so obvious and undeniable to the people of the world, that popular unrest is rising fast. Moreover, the power elite know that the propaganda war has been lost - which is why they are now resorting to fascism and to sheer force of repression. (See my essay, mentioned above.) Your arguments are not only hollow and unsound - they have already failed. I'm sure Professor Wolff will rebut and refute your self-evidently falacious argument very well, but I was so appalled by the contrast and contradiction between your sincere moral sentiments and your dubious apologetics for neo-feudal corporatist capitalism, that I had to pause the video of the debate to make this note. Given the choice between sociopathic power-mongering fascists, which is what the billionaire WEF oligarchy represents, and naive, well-meaning ideologues on the other hand, clearly the latter are preferable and better - but not in the least satisfactory or sufficient. Failing grade as an economist or political analyst, I must say, as a researcher in political-economy and philosophy for four decades now, myself, I am sorry to say, my brother. Read the Davos Report along with Michael Hudson, please - and listen carefully to Professor Wolff, I would humbly urge. J. Todd Ring, Author of Enlightened Democracy And The People vs The Elite And yes, I am philosophically aligned with the grassroots populist libertarian left, with a strong admiration for Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire and Thomas Paine, the founders of liberal democracy, as well. Give me FDR, Kropotkin, or Thomas Paine, and I will be thrilled, or at least, greatly relieved. But if we continue on our current trajectory, it will be dystopian in the extreme, with neo-Malthusian techno-fascist oligarchs at the helm, and a boot on the face of humanity, and far worse, for a long time to come. Time to cut the bullshit, to put it frankly - and now.

Marx's vision seems zero sum'ed in regards to our labor and the capital(ist) extracting labor. There's no place for value added by commerce and thus presumes that the laborer must lose out in this system. Marx was a fool or a liar.

“[T]he mob is the most ruthless of tyrants;” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx refuted in 8 words. "I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous - a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite. Ecce Homo (1888). Why I am a Destiny", Friedrich Nietzsche Trying to put lipstick on a pig, or in this case feral hogs when the name of the philosopher for tyrants, Marx is brought into the discussion. Do these so called philosophers at Ivy League Universities ever consider the human suffering that has arisen from the pages of this plagiarist ghoul, and monster of a degenerate, Karl Marx? Will humanity ever outgrow this infantile demented philosophy that has resulted in the sufferings of millions upon millions. The hollow men prison tyrants in the Davos Crowd of the WEF even use the fig leaf of Marxist propaganda to cover up their power plays. Some background on Marx's not so original philosophy as discussed in a prominent amazon book review on Marx: "....Yet again Karl Marx is portrayed as the father of Communism and the friend of the Working Class yet he was neither! The 1848 Communist Manifesto was nothing short of a direct copy of an earlier book written by the long forgotten French Socialist Victor Considerant in 1843, and given a second edition in 1847 in Paris and entitled "Principles of Socialism : Manifesto of the Democracy of the Nineteenth Century". Not only did Marx and Engels "discover" their "manifesto" in Mr.Considerants "manifesto" but they also copied the form and titles of the chapters as well. The only completely new part of "their" manifesto was found on the title page where they claimed to be the original authors" Nietzsche soared far above these pirate grifter Marxists in his tour de force Will to Power. The will to power shows the real focus of Marxism that Karl conveniently sidestepped in his drunken tirades against humanity. Marx, just an utter lout and a philosophical plagiarist that is today only pushed by the leftists radicals that have polluted the once esteemed Ivy League schools and Oxford/Cambridge. Dogs now have more class and dignity than the deranged "hollow men" Marxists tyrannizing the halls of philosophy at these 'elite???universities", especially around mask time of Halloween. Nietzsche admired aristocratic bearing and noble refined tastes. By contrast, Marx had the tastes of a chain smoking, pool hall hustler grifter and the character ethos of devious Captain Morgan. "Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when ye have all denied me will I come back unto you." Friedrich Nietzsche. Will to power has sent that feral hog of a lout, Marx, into the dustbin of history. Time will reveal all about the differences between the Nietzschean Mt. Everest Summit top climbers, and those Marxian's wallowing in caves of darkness at base camp. All the time while watching the flicker of light and "materialistic, capitalistic" shadows from their base camp cave, these resentful, sinister Marxist "Ivy League philosophy instructors" are berating those "ambitious, bourgeois" climbers out on the vast horizons and leading edge of Nietzschean intellectual dynamism and "power." Ralph Waldo Emerson observed a man can only see what he is prepared to see. Marxists need to come out of the prison of their own making in their dark, dank oppressive interpretation of how to "improve the state" that has resulted in the most horrific of suffering for mankind. Fascinating video presentation and production. New US subscriber

an excellent lecture, wish it was longer.

great video!

I wonder if part of the problem is that middle class western men have less socialisation into masculinity than they used to. I imagine working class men are more likely to give short shrift to transgenderism etc compared to college educated men. Could this simply be because working class men have a more earthy / natural understanding of their masculinity because it is more likely to be conditioned by physical realities. Whereas middle class men live more in the abstract invented world of academia

there was no cooption. and it can be seen in silenced warnings of hannah arendt early on, the first excommunicated woman: the POLITICAL IS PERSONAL is what is NEOLIBERAL -> through hivemindidioms, we have transformed all human social relationships into capitalist cost benefit analyses of emotional labor and privilege, creating virtue signalling societies that worship privileged exploiters. time to reap what we have sown

Alghazali is the proof of islam.bear in mind when u criticise him

very informative. thanks

Great video. Many thanks

Thank you for your classes, David. I appreciate your work in promoting knowledge.

Erratum: of course it's Magna Graecia...

These guys are geniuses.

Super "in the weeds" tush here. This separation of "State" from society makes the West a laughing stock to the Islamist of exceedingly strange manfulness.

Brownson's beliefs about the relatioship seem logically inconsistent with what Pope Leo XIII teaches in Libertas Prasestantissimum, his encyclical on human liberty. For Brownson, the governmwnt is incompetent to choose the true religion, according to the speaker in the video. But Leo writes: "Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded." www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

I don't think marijuana is the problem, I usually agree with Peter about a lot of things but I think he's a little out of touch with what exactly is going on with the drug stuff both the marijuana issue and the opioid issue which are two separate issues but I think he's probably wrong on both of them. Which is interesting because if he just followed his instinct, his libertarian instinct, he would come to the right conclusion which is that marijuana and opioids aren't the problem... The drug war is.

The feminist influence on Christine Emba has compromised what should be her Catholic world view. Andrew Tate's lived experience is different from his post pandemic public conversations. Men work and die to protect their mothers, sisters, wives and children. Emory did not abandon Andrew and his siblings. He always spent long tours away from home and he seemed to just not be able to live in the same house with the mom after his Air force service. A sacrifice of his happiness for country.

Peter's thought : " Why am I with this guy on the stage? ".......