Its always nice to hear a well spoken boomers view on Marx. Too much toxicity is projected online of their generation, they’re not all seething regressionists
Your not wrong. I am not here to attack, but to 'sit and chat' if youll mind my simile. People are people. There is hatred to all generations, and heros also. You could logically raise the point of different material conditions. You would be right to argue against me here. But I hope youll spare me the time to say your an educated, smart man. I wont break down why I think that, id waste more of your time. Time is a precious thing indeed. Instead, I argue how do we change these conditions? The first step is organisation. Lets appeal to the Boomers who saw past the propaganda, that we might lean on the wise amongst them. Alan woods and Ted grant did a lot to build and hold together the internationale, yet they were not alone. Lets unite the people, for the people.
I've been struggling to understand the concept of Dialectical Materialism for some time now. Alan Woods really did an amazing job of breaking it down. I think I have a basic grasp of the idea now and can expand my knowledge further by reading Marxist works on it. I've read some essays on Marxism by Alan and I loved those. I hear he also has a book on Dialectical Materialism. Will definitely start from that.
@@randomizer2240 Not really, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and even Zoroastrianism have their own dialectical understanding of the society which is material but when it comes to overall understanding of the Universe and Cosmos then only they're Idealist. I haven't read Avestan scriptures but Bible and more so Qur'an have class struggle ingrained in them. Most Catholic and Muslim socialist turn socialist not after Communist Manifesto but their interaction with their religious books. The protagonists of these books are all revolutionaries in word and action. On the other hand, Tao and Hinduism and Buddhism even look at material world with the lens of idealism. Even though Buddhists and Taoists may not have the central concept of God but that doesn't make them less idealistic. The Eastern mysticism is so idealistic that it even disregards the existence of material world calling it an 'illusion'/ Maya.
I think the concept is extremely poorly communicated. Dialectical materialism is essentially atheism/a-supernatural philosophy with special emphasis on imploring society to recognize non-permanence.
Hello Wonderful Alan Woods, 2 things: 1) you break barriers of access for understanding and this was an absolute privilege to watch, sir and I shall many more times watch it and share it. Excitedly awaiting my copy of Bolshevism - Road to Revolution from my fine local bookstore. 2) my comrades here with me in Africa ask me to remind you as a tonic, they can't put ceilings on the garden. If you feeling a little despondent, its easy to blame capitalism, but neurobiology suggests it may be your blood sugar so eat some lunch.
@Phil King Mein Kampf is not a practicable source of literature to expound the dialectical process. There's number of books Allan Woods recommends which ive started collecting.
Marxism is responsible for over 100 MILLION Human beings. You support a murderer and a a racist? Do some serious study on your own on 20th century & you can NOT Support this murderous ideology.
@@duffdingelmeyer7101 Oh yes because Marx was a delightfully lovely human being right? Your own personal Idiocy will not erase history it is there for the entire world to see.
Marxism is responsible for over 100 MILLION Human beings. You support a murderer and a a racist? Do some serious study on your own on 20th century & you can NOT Support this murderous ideology.
Marxism is responsible for over 100 MILLION Human beings. You support a murderer and a a racist? Do some serious study on your own on 20th century & you can NOT Support this murderous ideology.
@@JohnDoe-101 where do you get these numbers from? Even the stalinist regime didn't kill (not even remotely close) that number of people, even though they killed basically all the revolutionary leaders of the October Revolution. The capitalist system on the other hand, although has its place in history for taking us into a higher mode of production, has lead us to two world wars, resulting in tens of millions of deaths, plus all the imperialist wars we have until this very day, and it's taking us, potentially, into a third world war. If you amass all the deaths from starvation, lack of clean water, violence as result of poverty, easily preventable diseases, which are the result of the intervention and pillaging of the poorer countries, like those in Africa, Latin America and Asia, you get hundreds of millions of deaths Marxism is no more than a materialist theory that explains the evolution of History, of humankind, through the revolutions in the modes of production. Capitalism is one stage of human development, but it's not the final stage, it will not live forever. In its interior there are the seeds of socialism, which will eventually overcome it. Even the bourgeois intelectuals understand this, although they call it the "post-scarcity society"
@@Gabriel-mf7wh It's called 20th century HISTORY. Look into it for yourself. Do not believe me at all but do your own serious research to see whether or not it is true. Something tells me you won't bother to check. If I am lying about those numbers you can do real research and find out. It's not matter of debate it is a matter of history.
I've never had science explained so eloquently and simply that I'm able to understand it from the get go and my IQ is fairly decent yet mainstream education is severely lacking in comparison. This taught me more that any teacher could.
What a resectable trait, you have the humility and intelligence to take a neither arrogant nor self depricating stance on your own intellect. That, my friend, is wisdom : )
This guy’s words are so soothing I could listen all day. Doesn’t appear to be coming from a Biology background yet is lucidly explaining the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Brilliant. Speaking of, I’m Reading Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene and so far I think it is of essential reading for Socialists interested in refuting the sophomoric social Darwinist conceptions of capitalism.
Foucault is an important theorist, taught by the Marxist Althusser, who explains how power functions through psychology psychiatry and language, he is important to Marxism and communism.
Marxist analysis is great. The trouble is that western people either forget that the rest of the world exists or that ever had anything of value to say. This colours their insights and vitiates their analyses.
He also has some misunderstandings of physics, witch is acceptable as its not his field, but a problem when he uses examples that more incorrect than correct.
@sin The two examples I would point out are as follows.13:46 a small mistake in claiming human embryo's have gills. Pharyngeal slit's are present, and are a good example of how we identify the similarities in development of fish and humans, but they aren't gills. This is an important distinction because it is the developmental process that changes very slightly over time then accumulating into larger changes, rather than multiple possibility being present at the start with one winning out.16:15 a classifications is made using the terms solid and fluids colloquially, but equating them to scientific terms. This leads to a series of problems like the one at 16:20, a claim that a table is mostly air, rather than mostly empty space. His example's are arguably close, but distant enough that his statement would have more value with out the flawed references to Physics and Biology.
Marxism is responsible for over 100 MILLION Human beings. You support a murderer and a a racist? Do some serious study on your own on 20th century & you can NOT Support this murderous ideology.
I enjoyed this lecture but I don't entirely agree with it. I feel this way of using dialectical materialism, of throwing it at absolutely everything and treating it as having popped fully formed out of Marx's and Engels' combined foreheads instead of being the product of many thinkers that started long before Marx (not just Hegel) and continue up to the present day. To dismiss "postmodernists" and other 20th century left scholars like Debord, Derrida, Foucault, etc. as "intellectual pygmies" is not merely racist (remember, "pygmies" refers to groups of actual people, who have their own languages, cultures, and histories) and insulting to thinkers who lived under a different stage of capitalism from Marx and saw things about it he did and could not, but from a revolutionary perspective, extremely dangerous, as it elides aspects of class rule and social domination that long predated capitalism and could long outlast it, giving rise to further forms of oppressive class rule (like the managerialism of the USSR and its vassal states, which thinkers like Kropotkin and Bakunin saw coming and warned about). Postmodernism, social justice ideology, intersectionalism, and other things commonly dismissed by people like Alan Woods exist for a very good reason--because Marx's work by itself is not enough. There are things he overlooked, things he never considered, forces like the spectacle and recuperation that were of little consequence or even nonexistent in his day but are major parts of capitalism as presently constituted. Not to mention that many of the postmodernists were themselves Marxist, or at least familiar with Marx. Many postmodernist concepts do not oppose Marxism but rather go hand-in-hand with it, lenses with a higher magnification power that show less than Marxism's big picture view, but show what they show in greater detail. They don't replace Marxism anymore than relativity and quantum mechanics replaced classical mechanics--they explain different things and have different applications. You wouldn't use quantum mechanics to design an elevator, nor would you use classical mechanics to devise hypotheses for a particle accelerator experiment. Alan Woods was right that Darwin never did fully understand evolution--but neither did Marx fully understand socialism. The process of "fully understanding" is one that did not end with them but continued through the 20th century to this day, and will continue on to the revolutions (plural, I consider the idea of one revolution with one socialism for all the world to be authoritarian, un-proletarian, and doomed to failure, just like the bourgeoisie would have been doomed to failure if all liberalism had to be one particular kind of liberalism) and beyond. To think otherwise is to reject experience and empiricism, which is more like the praxeology of Ludwig von Mises than Marx. Marx explained many things, but not everything, and his philosophy is as subject to revision, elaboration, and synthesis with other ideas as any other, just as he revised, elaborated, and synthesized the philosophies of people who came before him. Even when Marxist socialism is realized, it will have flaws and contradictions that were not foreseen and will have to be hammered out by changes to theory and practice, or through the introduction of elements of theory and practice from other forms of socialism.
But Alan Woods did mention the many great thinkers preceding Marx and Engels' which created the functional framework for 'dialectics' and 'materialism'
wow you used a whole lot of words to say nothing. Also where did he say Marx fully understood everything about socialism that is the whole point of dialectics everything is changing and evolving its clear you don't understand it. Yeah the pygmy thing was pretty racist though i am sure he didn't mean it in that context though he should still be informed
Unsurprising the utterly meaningless critic of the lecture come together with a meaningless critic of USSR. The revolution responsible for taking a semi feudal country that did not had electricity and send the man to moon in just 40 years.
My quest is the truth. It is what I try to live by. To discover it the 1st Q I ask is: What is truth? The answer is "reality". Some Q's. Q1): At this moment does a moon orbit the earth? The answer is Y or N. Q2): Was Jesus of Nazareth the 1 supreme creator incarnate? The answer is Y or N. If N I will reject this proposition. If Y I will accept it. It matters not to me which is true. The word truth doesn't need the word "absolute" placed before it. Truth is absolute by its very nature. Since the human mind is finite & falible (which is a self-evident proposition) we have to accept that Dialectical Materialism (DL) could be true or untrue. How do we determine which? Is there is a way? I propose that there is 1 supreme infinite, infallible & omniscient intelligence incapable of propagating any falsehood. We can learn from this supreme intelligence if DL is true. Answering this Q would pose the Creator of all that is (materially) no challenge. Which would be more difficult? to answer this Q, or create the universe? Nor would the Creator be challenged in reaching us with this answer. Let me propose this. Ask God this: (this Q must be asked in good faith with an honest heart not only mouthed to satisfy the requirement of asking it). Ask: "God if you exist reveal to me yourself & show me if DL is true or false". If you receive no response. Then you are absolved of any judgment from God, for at the appointed time you will be able to tell the Creator that you ask in good faith & with an honest heart & received no response. The God I speak of is perfectly just. Ask - if you dare.
There is no timeless substance! We are the human becoming! Besides process philosophy, a lot of this sounds like systems thinking. I didn't actually start taking Marx seriously until taking systems thinking and process philosophy seriously.
My quest is the truth. It is what I try to live by. To discover it the 1st Q I ask is: What is truth? The answer is "reality". Some Q's. Q1): At this moment does a moon orbit the earth? The answer is Y or N. Q2): Was Jesus of Nazareth the 1 supreme creator incarnate? The answer is Y or N. If N I will reject this proposition. If Y I will accept it. It matters not to me which is true. The word truth doesn't need the word "absolute" placed before it. Truth is absolute by its very nature. Since the human mind is finite & falible (which is a self-evident proposition) we have to accept that Dialectical Materialism (DL) could be true or untrue. How do we determine which? Is there is a way? I propose that there is 1 supreme infinite, infallible & omniscient intelligence incapable of propagating any falsehood. We can learn from this supreme intelligence if DL is true. Answering this Q would pose the Creator of all that is (materially) no challenge. Which would be more difficult? to answer this Q, or create the universe? Nor would the Creator be challenged in reaching us with this answer. Let me propose this. Ask God this: (this Q must be asked in good faith with an honest heart not only mouthed to satisfy the requirement of asking it). Ask: "God if you exist reveal to me yourself & show me if DL is true or false". If you receive no response. Then you are absolved of any judgment from God, for at the appointed time you will be able to tell the Creator that you ask in good faith & with an honest heart & received no response. The God I speak of is perfectly just. Ask - if you dare.
As Darwin authored the biological evolution in his book ,on the origin of species ,Marx masterminded the social evolution in his dialectical materialism
Marxism is responsible for over 100 MILLION Human beings. You support a murderer and a a racist? Do some serious study on your own on 20th century & you can NOT Support this murderous ideology.
@@JohnDoe-101 Marxism is not an ideology and that 100 million number counts Nazi’s and those killed by Nazi’s you really take it serious? Marx was a product of his time but his analysis doesn’t include race in anything.
@@mixelon8255 All you have to do is study world history competently and honestly. Moderate estimates of 94 million to 120 million people perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba and Eastern Europe.
@@JohnDoe-101 No they didn’t, the highest of any number was 100 million from the Black Book of Communism where even the authors said it was bs, they counted declined birth rates, natural famines, and nazi’s in WW2 killed.
@@JohnDoe-101 Recently, several researchers posted on Internet that England just in India killed even more--- based on re examining English documents. Spain, Portugal, France etc. capitalist empires killed unknown ? no.s of more people.
This is the age of “Medialogy” not Ideology!! By Medialogy I do not mean so much the age of Media as much as the “age of mediation”, the age of mediating/intervening the Nature. Isn’t it truly dialectical in that, Nature is being paid back it’s due!!
Between all atoms is space. Air is not a scientific term. Its a general one. You have taken an understandable stance, but it is not in good faith to what he is saying. Take the example of the river. The atoms of water rushing away, in constant flux. Suddenly, your pointing out of his...rushed...argument falls away to air itself
@@ONEisN0THING "Air" is a well-defined term. as it is collectively understood as the "atmosphere". If you start to dig the definitions of things, you find all of them are vague in the end, even in the most "hard" sciences like mathematics. Table is never made of "air".
@@sepijortikka You are not arguing in good faith according to the premise. This table time wasting does not disprove dialectics Edit: Im repeating myself here
I don't get it. Is Alan Woods intentionally misrepresenting post-modernism, or does he not understand it to begin with? Hard to find a reason to keep paying attention when he starts from such factually wrong and intellectually lazy (or dishonest) position.
@@yawnandjokeoh It's irrelevant to Marxism regardless. I've studied it because I have nothing better to do, but it contains nothing that Marx & Engels haven't already dealt with scientifically.
Didn't mention Kant, Fitche, Freuderbach; didn't mention Lenin or Stalin. Didn't differentiate from HisMat and DiaMat; doesn't contend with the refutations of the Situationist International or Bookchin. This is honestly one of the most undignified lectures I've ever seen on it.
Highly intelligent, erudite and scientifically accurate presentation. Was a joy to listen to and absorb its ideology. Must be speaking to an audience of sheeple though if one doesn’t appreciate that the revolutionary ideology spoken of is failed. Has failed in every country tried because in order to succeed must resort to totalitarianism. Everyone equal some more equal than others. Would have been good if not so wrong.
Liberation Theology.........the best of both worlds - so why pick a particular side (idealism OR Materialism) at the exclusion of the other when you can be on both!
Idealism or materialism is the key distinction. Understand why. If he makes it not clear here, it were a bad lecture. Just read the original of Marx Dialectic in Nature ... Or of nature? See Marxists.org
Well if one does not buy the idea of supernatural essences - or minds existing previously or independently of bodies - and explains nature by nature then materialism it is. No theology required.
@@ericklopes4046 The question is not what you want to believe is true, but what is true? Is there such a thing a truth? Truth is by its very nature absolute.
@@johnnyharry467 Thanks for joining the discussion even after such a long time. If you're interested in my take on truth, this video explains the kind of philosophy that I adhere to: ua-cam.com/video/_jLJczkOU44/v-deo.html
How do we implement this dialectical revolution to achieve the utopian, Marxist world? How do we ensure the homeless are housed and the hungry are fed. Then, once we house them and feed them, how do we make sure they stay housed and fed even if they are intent on self-sabotage? The Soviet Union tried this and they went broke-and there was still homelessness and hunger. The US actually had to import grain to the USSR. China is succeeding more so but at the cost individual liberty. I guess the question is do we want individual liberty at the risk of personal failure, or do we want order (and equality across the board) at the risk of personal liberty.
It’s been a while since I watched, but wasn’t the thrust of the lecturer’s argument that life isn’t about suffering and under the correct conditions a golden utopia could be ushered in? If history teaches us anything it’s surely that this is not true
@@ThePeanutButterCup13 its non comprehensible. It's most definitely a type of philosophy and not a science. Historically the few times it was "used" as more than double speak, it was a failure. Look up the Lysenko crop failure. Dialectical Materialism failed really big when it was applied. Its mostly reserved today as double speak for small sects. Working people do not need dialectical philosophy.
"We can make this world a paradise" (49:47). Sure Alan, and communism has done so by slaughtering the unsubscribed. How well that has worked out for them so far...
well said. The good thing about the US is that one can live as a Marxist if one wants as opposed to an actual Marxist country where one cannot live as free market capitalist. Plus, the US has moved away from unfettered capitalism since the Great Depression. Our economy is mixed, which is best version of democratic capitalism.
1.33 in and he has already dismissed family and home as humiliating... and by the end still no explanation of dialectics, just a rant against God, as usual. but still quotes the bible and talks about a higher spiritual level.. and a paradise in this world.. you guys loool
Whattay silly man 😂🤣 Either he doesn't understands Dialectical Materialism or was just obscuring it (usual Trotskyists). Throughout the lecture he was just obsessed with Atheism.
If dialectical materialism, envisioned by Karl Marx, is in fact a way to look at economic systems in light of chemical reactions and evolutionary processes in the material world, why hasn't it barred fruit? But rather brought about horrible and needless suffering to humanity to then be rejected by most of the world for a more efficient alternative, in the form of capitalism?
dannyboy765ify That was the same argument used by slave masters, than feudal lords and now by you the capitalist bourgeois. Communism has never existed in its true form so it can’t be rejected, it’s a value system not just a method to control the means of production. You sound like another sheep that will support whichever is the dominant system. Most slaves and surfs did not aspire for revolution they simply accepted the status quo to be the natural order just as you do.
@@nopunts9947 even if we grant that we haven't seen Communism in its 'true form', you understand that the road to your supposed paradise is paved with suffering and evil. People will naturally reject the government taking their property, taking their wealth and the populace will become jealous and malicious towards one another when you tell them that their suffering is because if their successful neighbor. The fundamental flaw is that people are selfish and self interested. You cannot change that, and if you try to, it will necessarily have to be through violent force.
dannyboy765ify You represent the weak minded that the capitalist prey on, private property is a figment of your imagination just as god is to the religious. The Marxist does not desire for more for we are not easily manipulated by capitalist propaganda I mean marketing to desire more and to destroy, exploit and oppress merely because we want a shinny diamond, more rare grape or bigger dwelling. We understand to ignore those artificial instincts that the sheep respond to. The human brain is not selfish or greedy it is resourceful, kind and collaborative that is why we have become the dominant species on earth today. No go along and worship your golden calf and continue your consumption fetish as a the simple minded do. Just as the surfs begged for forgiveness from their creator and the wealthy paid indulgences because they were easily manipulated by the high priests.
@@nopunts9947 U. Hall what I just saw was you writing a propagandist speech. There was no argument to be found. No refutation of Communism's evils, no acknowledgment of human nature. You say that the human brian is no greedy or selfish without evidence. I have two questions for you then. 1 Have you ever played with toddlers? 2 what propels capitalist societies if not human nature?
There is absolutely no shred of evidence of a real and actual being such as the devil or god. It is a mental construct to where people put the cart before the horse and say this is, so therefore that must be, without first seeking to find data to gain evidences to approach the actual truth. God and the devil are merely imaginary concepts, fairy tales without the fairys.
Everything in this lecture is about dialectical materialism. He first explains the historical material development of philosophy and human thought, then what makes dialectical materialism up, why it is revolutionary and different ways to understand it, and at last why a revolutionary philosophy is so important today. If you're inpatient and want the basic ABC's of dialectical materialism (the dialectical laws etc) you will only get a hollow, mechanical understanding of it: the opposite of a dialectical materialist understanding.
This guy says nothing important, then at 48:00 jumps to an unsubstantiated conclusion that Democratic Socialism is better than Capitalism. What the fuck is this guy on? I love how he keeps referring to a product of Capitalism, his smartphone, and then promotes the system of poverty and stagnation Democratic Socialism. What a fool.
Hundreds of millions of people starve around the world, billions live under the poverty line. Where are the socialist countries that are causing this poverty and starvation?
@@smalbeaste It's a mindset inconsistent with reality. Socialism and Communism fit that mindset. There is no Communist utopia at the end of the rainbow, on Cult of Critical Marxist propaganda Jim Jonesing the F... out of people.
@@Objectivityiskey You think you are profoud and that your arguments are new, but the idea of socialism as a utopia was smashed by Marx and Engels in the 1800s. It's an old discussion. Marxism isn't a utopian idea, it is a scientific method to understand the processes and changes in society for the sole purpose of changing society further. Socialism is possible because we as a human society has the objective means to create a new society built on the the gains of capitalism. We didn't have that in feudal times, or before. Capitalism has reached clear it's limits, it did so over a hundred years ago with monopoly and imperialism which Marx predicted, and will either evolve into socialism or collapse the entire human civilisation. Climate change, caused by the inability of capitalism to do anything about it, is a clear example and also the organic economical crisis of today that we can't get out of. Therefore we must have a concious revolution, a change in society away from a profit based market to develop further. We can take society into our own hands for the first time in history and create a democratically planned economy, because we have the means of over abundance with the technological development we have reached. Do you disagree that we produce food for 10 billion people every year, but still hundreds of millions starve? Do you disagree that we have the means today with the development of the productive forces so that we can live in a society of over-abundance? Do you disagree that capitalism experiences organic crisies of over production that cannot be solved within the framwork of a profit based market? It doesn't matter if you do. Those are the facts, and marxism as a method are the only ideas that have explained the real objective processes behind this. Capitalism and the free market, that is the real unrealistic utopia. If you think this is nonsense, then please propose your new brilliant idea on how to develop society further. My guess is that you are just a doomer who came here for no other reason than to spread your pessismism about the future, but maybe I'm wrong. Think about it, wouldn't it be great for the ruling capitalist class if everyone believed that nothing can be done to change society? Did they maybe bash that mindset into your head and now you're unable to critically think for yourself?
@@smalbeaste No, Socialism and Communism are fictional utopia that only interest ignorat kids, and moronic adults. Capitalism is how reality works, it just is what it is.
@@Objectivityiskey A hunter gatherer would smack the head of the person who first tried to plant raw barley. He would say: Hunting and gathering for the day is how reality works, it just is what it is. A roman slave owner, when faced with the spartacus uprising would also said: Lay down your weapons, slave society is how reality works, it just is what it is. A feudal lord would say (and they actually said this...) to the revolutionary bourgeoisie in france: Don't overthrow the monarchy, or give people liberal rights, private ownership or land to the peasants! feudal serfdom is how reality works, it just is what it is! What you're doing is making an argument that capitalism is the natural order of things. But this is a false interpretation of the history of society and people have made the same argument for thousands of years. What makes you think that capitalism is the final stage in human development? Why are YOU more right than the feudal lord, who interpreted his version of the order of society in the same way? You only think it is ''human nature'' because it is the only system you have experienced. But ''reality'' is constantly changing, sometimes rapidly. There simply is no static ''human nature''. These are FACTS, not utopian ideas! This is the dialectical understanding of things, which is the basis for marxism.
Less than 12 minutes into this rambling hot mess, and this guy is already wrong in so many ways. Hegel was not a giant, he was the pigmy. Hegel was a sad Nialistic fool. Let's see where this goes.
Its always nice to hear a well spoken boomers view on Marx. Too much toxicity is projected online of their generation, they’re not all seething regressionists
Your not wrong. I am not here to attack, but to 'sit and chat' if youll mind my simile.
People are people. There is hatred to all generations, and heros also.
You could logically raise the point of different material conditions. You would be right to argue against me here.
But I hope youll spare me the time to say your an educated, smart man. I wont break down why I think that, id waste more of your time. Time is a precious thing indeed.
Instead, I argue how do we change these conditions? The first step is organisation. Lets appeal to the Boomers who saw past the propaganda, that we might lean on the wise amongst them.
Alan woods and Ted grant did a lot to build and hold together the internationale, yet they were not alone. Lets unite the people, for the people.
A thoroughly interesting, multi-faceted, Insightful, humorous and highly informative lecture by Alan Woods!
I've been struggling to understand the concept of Dialectical Materialism for some time now. Alan Woods really did an amazing job of breaking it down. I think I have a basic grasp of the idea now and can expand my knowledge further by reading Marxist works on it. I've read some essays on Marxism by Alan and I loved those. I hear he also has a book on Dialectical Materialism. Will definitely start from that.
Actually he didn't
A Christian Socialist by the name of Caleb Maupin has done that on UA-cam. Alan Woods was just obsessed with Atheism.
@@AsadAli-jc5tg being a Christian socialist or of any other organised religion is against Marxist teachings.
@@randomizer2240 Not really, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and even Zoroastrianism have their own dialectical understanding of the society which is material but when it comes to overall understanding of the Universe and Cosmos then only they're Idealist. I haven't read Avestan scriptures but Bible and more so Qur'an have class struggle ingrained in them. Most Catholic and Muslim socialist turn socialist not after Communist Manifesto but their interaction with their religious books. The protagonists of these books are all revolutionaries in word and action. On the other hand, Tao and Hinduism and Buddhism even look at material world with the lens of idealism. Even though Buddhists and Taoists may not have the central concept of God but that doesn't make them less idealistic. The Eastern mysticism is so idealistic that it even disregards the existence of material world calling it an 'illusion'/ Maya.
I think the concept is extremely poorly communicated. Dialectical materialism is essentially atheism/a-supernatural philosophy with special emphasis on imploring society to recognize non-permanence.
Hello Wonderful Alan Woods, 2 things: 1) you break barriers of access for understanding and this was an absolute privilege to watch, sir and I shall many more times watch it and share it. Excitedly awaiting my copy of Bolshevism - Road to Revolution from my fine local bookstore. 2) my comrades here with me in Africa ask me to remind you as a tonic, they can't put ceilings on the garden. If you feeling a little despondent, its easy to blame capitalism, but neurobiology suggests it may be your blood sugar so eat some lunch.
Entertaining and enlightening. Much thanks. Solidarity from Chicago
Ive probably watched this lecture a 100 times
@Phil King Mein Kampf is not a practicable source of literature to expound the dialectical process. There's number of books Allan Woods recommends which ive started collecting.
is it a good introduction to historical materialism? Does it help understanding understanding the concept for non-philosophers?
40+40 times
Thanks! That was good food for thought. I shared this because a lot of people need to think about it.
I’d love to listen to him lecturing Historical Materialism
Marxism is responsible for over 100 MILLION Human beings. You support a murderer and a a racist? Do some serious study on your own on 20th century & you can NOT Support this murderous ideology.
@@JohnDoe-101 lol you have no clue. Marx was a theorist. If you want to regurgitate bourgeois propaganda at least get the claims straight.
@@duffdingelmeyer7101 Oh yes because Marx was a delightfully lovely human being right? Your own personal Idiocy will not erase history it is there for the entire world to see.
@@JohnDoe-101 lol
This is incredibly entertaining and informative!
Marxism is responsible for over 100 MILLION Human beings. You support a murderer and a a racist? Do some serious study on your own on 20th century & you can NOT Support this murderous ideology.
Alan Woods is so entertaining. Great speech!
It's the accent for me tbh
@@nellsrinath3253 Agreed! The content is good, but his accent is just so nice to listen to.
Marxism is responsible for over 100 MILLION Human beings. You support a murderer and a a racist? Do some serious study on your own on 20th century & you can NOT Support this murderous ideology.
@@JohnDoe-101 where do you get these numbers from? Even the stalinist regime didn't kill (not even remotely close) that number of people, even though they killed basically all the revolutionary leaders of the October Revolution.
The capitalist system on the other hand, although has its place in history for taking us into a higher mode of production, has lead us to two world wars, resulting in tens of millions of deaths, plus all the imperialist wars we have until this very day, and it's taking us, potentially, into a third world war. If you amass all the deaths from starvation, lack of clean water, violence as result of poverty, easily preventable diseases, which are the result of the intervention and pillaging of the poorer countries, like those in Africa, Latin America and Asia, you get hundreds of millions of deaths
Marxism is no more than a materialist theory that explains the evolution of History, of humankind, through the revolutions in the modes of production. Capitalism is one stage of human development, but it's not the final stage, it will not live forever. In its interior there are the seeds of socialism, which will eventually overcome it. Even the bourgeois intelectuals understand this, although they call it the "post-scarcity society"
@@Gabriel-mf7wh It's called 20th century HISTORY. Look into it for yourself. Do not believe me at all but do your own serious research to see whether or not it is true. Something tells me you won't bother to check. If I am lying about those numbers you can do real research and find out. It's not matter of debate it is a matter of history.
I've never had science explained so eloquently and simply that I'm able to understand it from the get go and my IQ is fairly decent yet mainstream education is severely lacking in comparison. This taught me more that any teacher could.
What a resectable trait, you have the humility and intelligence to take a neither arrogant nor self depricating stance on your own intellect.
That, my friend, is wisdom
: )
This guy’s words are so soothing I could listen all day. Doesn’t appear to be coming from a Biology background yet is lucidly explaining the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Brilliant.
Speaking of, I’m Reading Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene and so far I think it is of essential reading for Socialists interested in refuting the sophomoric social Darwinist conceptions of capitalism.
Alan Woods - the David Attenborough of Marxism
Wonderful lecture.
Foucault is an important theorist, taught by the Marxist Althusser, who explains how power functions through psychology psychiatry and language, he is important to Marxism and communism.
Red salute
Comrade Alan wood do very fine
Love his accent and enthusiasm
The fxcking Oracle, Alan Woods
Marxist analysis is great. The trouble is that western people either forget that the rest of the world exists or that ever had anything of value to say. This colours their insights and vitiates their analyses.
Stay on the topic old fella
The dialectical materialism is the main science among the other ones.
I have that same shirt
Nobody: Alan wood: Not so!
He also has some misunderstandings of physics, witch is acceptable as its not his field, but a problem when he uses examples that more incorrect than correct.
@sin The two examples I would point out are as follows.13:46 a small mistake in claiming human embryo's have gills. Pharyngeal slit's are present, and are a good example of how we identify the similarities in development of fish and humans, but they aren't gills. This is an important distinction because it is the developmental process that changes very slightly over time then accumulating into larger changes, rather than multiple possibility being present at the start with one winning out.16:15 a classifications is made using the terms solid and fluids colloquially, but equating them to scientific terms. This leads to a series of problems like the one at 16:20, a claim that a table is mostly air, rather than mostly empty space. His example's are arguably close, but distant enough that his statement would have more value with out the flawed references to Physics and Biology.
@ Don't argue with these people they understand anything there just nitpicking
@@xavierberton4714 nitpicking is how you get rid of lice. Bad philosophy is bad philosophy.
Red salute to comrade Aan Woods
this was an engaging lecture.
Marxism is responsible for over 100 MILLION Human beings. You support a murderer and a a racist? Do some serious study on your own on 20th century & you can NOT Support this murderous ideology.
Great comrade...
Brilliant!
I enjoyed this lecture but I don't entirely agree with it. I feel this way of using dialectical materialism, of throwing it at absolutely everything and treating it as having popped fully formed out of Marx's and Engels' combined foreheads instead of being the product of many thinkers that started long before Marx (not just Hegel) and continue up to the present day. To dismiss "postmodernists" and other 20th century left scholars like Debord, Derrida, Foucault, etc. as "intellectual pygmies" is not merely racist (remember, "pygmies" refers to groups of actual people, who have their own languages, cultures, and histories) and insulting to thinkers who lived under a different stage of capitalism from Marx and saw things about it he did and could not, but from a revolutionary perspective, extremely dangerous, as it elides aspects of class rule and social domination that long predated capitalism and could long outlast it, giving rise to further forms of oppressive class rule (like the managerialism of the USSR and its vassal states, which thinkers like Kropotkin and Bakunin saw coming and warned about). Postmodernism, social justice ideology, intersectionalism, and other things commonly dismissed by people like Alan Woods exist for a very good reason--because Marx's work by itself is not enough. There are things he overlooked, things he never considered, forces like the spectacle and recuperation that were of little consequence or even nonexistent in his day but are major parts of capitalism as presently constituted. Not to mention that many of the postmodernists were themselves Marxist, or at least familiar with Marx. Many postmodernist concepts do not oppose Marxism but rather go hand-in-hand with it, lenses with a higher magnification power that show less than Marxism's big picture view, but show what they show in greater detail. They don't replace Marxism anymore than relativity and quantum mechanics replaced classical mechanics--they explain different things and have different applications. You wouldn't use quantum mechanics to design an elevator, nor would you use classical mechanics to devise hypotheses for a particle accelerator experiment.
Alan Woods was right that Darwin never did fully understand evolution--but neither did Marx fully understand socialism. The process of "fully understanding" is one that did not end with them but continued through the 20th century to this day, and will continue on to the revolutions (plural, I consider the idea of one revolution with one socialism for all the world to be authoritarian, un-proletarian, and doomed to failure, just like the bourgeoisie would have been doomed to failure if all liberalism had to be one particular kind of liberalism) and beyond. To think otherwise is to reject experience and empiricism, which is more like the praxeology of Ludwig von Mises than Marx. Marx explained many things, but not everything, and his philosophy is as subject to revision, elaboration, and synthesis with other ideas as any other, just as he revised, elaborated, and synthesized the philosophies of people who came before him. Even when Marxist socialism is realized, it will have flaws and contradictions that were not foreseen and will have to be hammered out by changes to theory and practice, or through the introduction of elements of theory and practice from other forms of socialism.
great comment
he actually mentions that Dialectics has been formed since the greek philosophers
But Alan Woods did mention the many great thinkers preceding Marx and Engels' which created the functional framework for 'dialectics' and 'materialism'
wow you used a whole lot of words to say nothing. Also where did he say Marx fully understood everything about socialism that is the whole point of dialectics everything is changing and evolving its clear you don't understand it. Yeah the pygmy thing was pretty racist though i am sure he didn't mean it in that context though he should still be informed
Unsurprising the utterly meaningless critic of the lecture come together with a meaningless critic of USSR. The revolution responsible for taking a semi feudal country that did not had electricity and send the man to moon in just 40 years.
My quest is the truth. It is what I try to live by. To discover it the 1st Q I ask is: What is truth? The answer is "reality". Some Q's. Q1): At this moment does a moon orbit the earth? The answer is Y or N. Q2): Was Jesus of Nazareth the 1 supreme creator incarnate? The answer is Y or N. If N I will reject this proposition. If Y I will accept it. It matters not to me which is true. The word truth doesn't need the word "absolute" placed before it. Truth is absolute by its very nature. Since the human mind is finite & falible (which is a self-evident proposition) we have to accept that Dialectical Materialism (DL) could be true or untrue. How do we determine which? Is there is a way? I propose that there is 1 supreme infinite, infallible & omniscient intelligence incapable of propagating any falsehood. We can learn from this supreme intelligence if DL is true. Answering this Q would pose the Creator of all that is (materially) no challenge. Which would be more difficult? to answer this Q, or create the universe? Nor would the Creator be challenged in reaching us with this answer. Let me propose this. Ask God this: (this Q must be asked in good faith with an honest heart not only mouthed to satisfy the requirement of asking it). Ask: "God if you exist reveal to me yourself & show me if DL is true or false". If you receive no response. Then you are absolved of any judgment from God, for at the appointed time you will be able to tell the Creator that you ask in good faith & with an honest heart & received no response. The God I speak of is perfectly just. Ask - if you dare.
Dafuq
28:30
There is no timeless substance! We are the human becoming! Besides process philosophy, a lot of this sounds like systems thinking. I didn't actually start taking Marx seriously until taking systems thinking and process philosophy seriously.
My quest is the truth. It is what I try to live by. To discover it the 1st Q I ask is: What is truth? The answer is "reality". Some Q's. Q1): At this moment does a moon orbit the earth? The answer is Y or N. Q2): Was Jesus of Nazareth the 1 supreme creator incarnate? The answer is Y or N. If N I will reject this proposition. If Y I will accept it. It matters not to me which is true. The word truth doesn't need the word "absolute" placed before it. Truth is absolute by its very nature. Since the human mind is finite & falible (which is a self-evident proposition) we have to accept that Dialectical Materialism (DL) could be true or untrue. How do we determine which? Is there is a way? I propose that there is 1 supreme infinite, infallible & omniscient intelligence incapable of propagating any falsehood. We can learn from this supreme intelligence if DL is true. Answering this Q would pose the Creator of all that is (materially) no challenge. Which would be more difficult? to answer this Q, or create the universe? Nor would the Creator be challenged in reaching us with this answer. Let me propose this. Ask God this: (this Q must be asked in good faith with an honest heart not only mouthed to satisfy the requirement of asking it). Ask: "God if you exist reveal to me yourself & show me if DL is true or false". If you receive no response. Then you are absolved of any judgment from God, for at the appointed time you will be able to tell the Creator that you ask in good faith & with an honest heart & received no response. The God I speak of is perfectly just. Ask - if you dare.
I am sure he has something to say, but it seems to be taking him forever to say it.
So is Dialectical materialism Platonic?
No, Plato was an idealist he claimed to believe in eternal forms.
Like prime numbers?
@@timmy18135 like any numbers
Plato wrote about dialectics. Marx added the material part. Hubbard wrote about dianetics LOL
Plato was about idealism
As with any philosophy, Marxist philosophy you can take it or leave it.
As Darwin authored the biological evolution in his book ,on the origin of species ,Marx masterminded the social evolution in his dialectical materialism
Marxism is responsible for over 100 MILLION Human beings. You support a murderer and a a racist? Do some serious study on your own on 20th century & you can NOT Support this murderous ideology.
@@JohnDoe-101 Marxism is not an ideology and that 100 million number counts Nazi’s and those killed by Nazi’s you really take it serious? Marx was a product of his time but his analysis doesn’t include race in anything.
@@mixelon8255 All you have to do is study world history competently and honestly. Moderate estimates of 94 million to 120 million people perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba and Eastern Europe.
@@JohnDoe-101 No they didn’t, the highest of any number was 100 million from the Black Book of Communism where even the authors said it was bs, they counted declined birth rates, natural famines, and nazi’s in WW2 killed.
@@JohnDoe-101 Recently, several researchers posted on Internet that
England just in India killed even more---
based on re examining English documents. Spain, Portugal, France etc.
capitalist empires killed unknown ?
no.s of more people.
This is the age of “Medialogy” not Ideology!! By Medialogy I do not mean so much the age of Media as much as the “age of mediation”, the age of mediating/intervening the Nature. Isn’t it truly dialectical in that, Nature is being paid back it’s due!!
And I have an argument if we all are dust how come I end up human and my brother dust moon
well put
"Table is mostly air." Hey c'mon :D
Alan Woods seems to be presenting a very rushed lecture or something. Of course what he meant was that the table is mostly empty space - not air.
Between all atoms is space.
Air is not a scientific term. Its a general one.
You have taken an understandable stance, but it is not in good faith to what he is saying. Take the example of the river. The atoms of water rushing away, in constant flux.
Suddenly, your pointing out of his...rushed...argument falls away to air itself
@@ONEisN0THING "Air" is a well-defined term. as it is collectively understood as the "atmosphere". If you start to dig the definitions of things, you find all of them are vague in the end, even in the most "hard" sciences like mathematics. Table is never made of "air".
@@sepijortikka You are not arguing in good faith according to the premise.
This table time wasting does not disprove dialectics
Edit: Im repeating myself here
I don't get it. Is Alan Woods intentionally misrepresenting post-modernism, or does he not understand it to begin with? Hard to find a reason to keep paying attention when he starts from such factually wrong and intellectually lazy (or dishonest) position.
He is lazy, I used to be in his franchised tendency and he has no understanding of postmodernism he tends to use it as a boogeyman / strawman.
@@yawnandjokeoh It's irrelevant to Marxism regardless. I've studied it because I have nothing better to do, but it contains nothing that Marx & Engels haven't already dealt with scientifically.
Forty minutes in and he's not tied anything back to Marx, simply imposing his own understanding of DiaMat unto modern science.
What lacking analysis.
Didn't mention Kant, Fitche, Freuderbach; didn't mention Lenin or Stalin.
Didn't differentiate from HisMat and DiaMat; doesn't contend with the refutations of the Situationist International or Bookchin.
This is honestly one of the most undignified lectures I've ever seen on it.
clannites 0 😂🤣
Highly intelligent, erudite and scientifically accurate presentation. Was a joy to listen to and absorb its ideology. Must be speaking to an audience of sheeple though if one doesn’t appreciate that the revolutionary ideology spoken of is failed. Has failed in every country tried because in order to succeed must resort to totalitarianism. Everyone equal some more equal than others. Would have been good if not so wrong.
Meaning of LIFE! ...one should be either brainless or heavily suppressed to go on living without having his or her meaning of life
Liberation Theology.........the best of both worlds - so why pick a particular side (idealism OR Materialism) at the exclusion of the other when you can be on both!
Idealism or materialism is the key distinction. Understand why. If he makes it not clear here, it were a bad lecture. Just read the original of Marx Dialectic in Nature ... Or of nature? See Marxists.org
Well if one does not buy the idea of supernatural essences - or minds existing previously or independently of bodies - and explains nature by nature then materialism it is. No theology required.
@@ericklopes4046 The question is not what you want to believe is true, but what is true? Is there such a thing a truth? Truth is by its very nature absolute.
@@johnnyharry467 Thanks for joining the discussion even after such a long time. If you're interested in my take on truth, this video explains the kind of philosophy that I adhere to: ua-cam.com/video/_jLJczkOU44/v-deo.html
How do we implement this dialectical revolution to achieve the utopian, Marxist world? How do we ensure the homeless are housed and the hungry are fed. Then, once we house them and feed them, how do we make sure they stay housed and fed even if they are intent on self-sabotage? The Soviet Union tried this and they went broke-and there was still homelessness and hunger. The US actually had to import grain to the USSR. China is succeeding more so but at the cost individual liberty. I guess the question is do we want individual liberty at the risk of personal failure, or do we want order (and equality across the board) at the risk of personal liberty.
Is it an accident that nowadays mental pigmies, when they wanna say "nature", say Nietzsche?
From Michigan. This guy funny lol smart tho
Isn’t trying to establish an earthly utopia a form of idealism?
It’s been a while since I watched, but wasn’t the thrust of the lecturer’s argument that life isn’t about suffering and under the correct conditions a golden utopia could be ushered in? If history teaches us anything it’s surely that this is not true
exactly what i was thinking. read my comment.
You're mixing uses of the term "idealism", like a box that boxes
He explained every think except dialectical materialism ?!
Because its junk philosophy.
@@yawnandjokeoh Dialectical materialism isn't philosophy, it's science.
@@ThePeanutButterCup13 good one!
@@yawnandjokeoh do you understand it?
@@ThePeanutButterCup13 its non comprehensible. It's most definitely a type of philosophy and not a science. Historically the few times it was "used" as more than double speak, it was a failure. Look up the Lysenko crop failure. Dialectical Materialism failed really big when it was applied.
Its mostly reserved today as double speak for small sects.
Working people do not need dialectical philosophy.
"We can make this world a paradise" (49:47). Sure Alan, and communism has done so by slaughtering the unsubscribed. How well that has worked out for them so far...
well said. The good thing about the US is that one can live as a Marxist if one wants as opposed to an actual Marxist country where one cannot live as free market capitalist. Plus, the US has moved away from unfettered capitalism since the Great Depression. Our economy is mixed, which is best version of democratic capitalism.
“The name of this trash can is ideology” Zizek
Jackson Jeffrey Jackson Patricia Miller Richard
1.33 in and he has already dismissed family and home as humiliating...
and by the end still no explanation of dialectics, just a rant against God, as usual. but still quotes the bible and talks about a higher spiritual level.. and a paradise in this world..
you guys loool
too bad materialism is as useful for change as philosophy, fun facts humans make material conditions with their minds
Very enjoyable thank you. Is Elon Musk an exception to a general rule?
Whattay silly man 😂🤣 Either he doesn't understands Dialectical Materialism or was just obscuring it (usual Trotskyists). Throughout the lecture he was just obsessed with Atheism.
All this philosophical nonsense is a foolish distraction from the political tasks that confront the working class today.
If dialectical materialism, envisioned by Karl Marx, is in fact a way to look at economic systems in light of chemical reactions and evolutionary processes in the material world, why hasn't it barred fruit? But rather brought about horrible and needless suffering to humanity to then be rejected by most of the world for a more efficient alternative, in the form of capitalism?
dannyboy765ify That was the same argument used by slave masters, than feudal lords and now by you the capitalist bourgeois.
Communism has never existed in its true form so it can’t be rejected, it’s a value system not just a method to control the means of production. You sound like another sheep that will support whichever is the dominant system. Most slaves and surfs did not aspire for revolution they simply accepted the status quo to be the natural order just as you do.
@@nopunts9947 even if we grant that we haven't seen Communism in its 'true form', you understand that the road to your supposed paradise is paved with suffering and evil. People will naturally reject the government taking their property, taking their wealth and the populace will become jealous and malicious towards one another when you tell them that their suffering is because if their successful neighbor. The fundamental flaw is that people are selfish and self interested. You cannot change that, and if you try to, it will necessarily have to be through violent force.
dannyboy765ify You represent the weak minded that the capitalist prey on, private property is a figment of your imagination just as god is to the religious. The Marxist does not desire for more for we are not easily manipulated by capitalist propaganda I mean marketing to desire more and to destroy, exploit and oppress merely because we want a shinny diamond, more rare grape or bigger dwelling. We understand to ignore those artificial instincts that the sheep respond to.
The human brain is not selfish or greedy it is resourceful, kind and collaborative that is why we have become the dominant species on earth today.
No go along and worship your golden calf and continue your consumption fetish as a the simple minded do. Just as the surfs begged for forgiveness from their creator and the wealthy paid indulgences because they were easily manipulated by the high priests.
@@nopunts9947 Can you please suggest some step by step reading to understand and compare Karl Marx approach to political economy? I am a beginner.
@@nopunts9947 U. Hall what I just saw was you writing a propagandist speech. There was no argument to be found. No refutation of Communism's evils, no acknowledgment of human nature. You say that the human brian is no greedy or selfish without evidence. I have two questions for you then. 1 Have you ever played with toddlers? 2 what propels capitalist societies if not human nature?
It's amazing that a man with such knowledge can be so dogmatic. Even in his concept of heaven, he fails to see there is a devil.
There is absolutely no shred of evidence of a real and actual being such as the devil or god. It is a mental construct to where people put the cart before the horse and say this is, so therefore that must be, without first seeking to find data to gain evidences to approach the actual truth. God and the devil are merely imaginary concepts, fairy tales without the fairys.
CAPITALISM GIVE IT A CHANCE TO HUMAN INTELLECT TO DEVELP ITS CAPACITY> NOW>> DICTATORSHIP NEVER AGAIN>
The vulgar Marxist
Lots of rambling stream of consciousness observations and anecdotes but no time spent on dialectical materalism
Everything in this lecture is about dialectical materialism. He first explains the historical material development of philosophy and human thought, then what makes dialectical materialism up, why it is revolutionary and different ways to understand it, and at last why a revolutionary philosophy is so important today.
If you're inpatient and want the basic ABC's of dialectical materialism (the dialectical laws etc) you will only get a hollow, mechanical understanding of it: the opposite of a dialectical materialist understanding.
The speaker is allied with the Dark Side.
Its a shame he doesn't believe in the big bang
Science isn't up for "belief"
Terrible talk, pontificates about sciences he doesn’t understand.
This guy says nothing important, then at 48:00 jumps to an unsubstantiated conclusion that Democratic Socialism is better than Capitalism. What the fuck is this guy on? I love how he keeps referring to a product of Capitalism, his smartphone, and then promotes the system of poverty and stagnation Democratic Socialism. What a fool.
Hundreds of millions of people starve around the world, billions live under the poverty line. Where are the socialist countries that are causing this poverty and starvation?
@@smalbeaste It's a mindset inconsistent with reality. Socialism and Communism fit that mindset. There is no Communist utopia at the end of the rainbow, on Cult of Critical Marxist propaganda Jim Jonesing the F... out of people.
@@Objectivityiskey You think you are profoud and that your arguments are new, but the idea of socialism as a utopia was smashed by Marx and Engels in the 1800s. It's an old discussion. Marxism isn't a utopian idea, it is a scientific method to understand the processes and changes in society for the sole purpose of changing society further. Socialism is possible because we as a human society has the objective means to create a new society built on the the gains of capitalism. We didn't have that in feudal times, or before. Capitalism has reached clear it's limits, it did so over a hundred years ago with monopoly and imperialism which Marx predicted, and will either evolve into socialism or collapse the entire human civilisation. Climate change, caused by the inability of capitalism to do anything about it, is a clear example and also the organic economical crisis of today that we can't get out of.
Therefore we must have a concious revolution, a change in society away from a profit based market to develop further. We can take society into our own hands for the first time in history and create a democratically planned economy, because we have the means of over abundance with the technological development we have reached.
Do you disagree that we produce food for 10 billion people every year, but still hundreds of millions starve? Do you disagree that we have the means today with the development of the productive forces so that we can live in a society of over-abundance? Do you disagree that capitalism experiences organic crisies of over production that cannot be solved within the framwork of a profit based market?
It doesn't matter if you do. Those are the facts, and marxism as a method are the only ideas that have explained the real objective processes behind this.
Capitalism and the free market, that is the real unrealistic utopia.
If you think this is nonsense, then please propose your new brilliant idea on how to develop society further. My guess is that you are just a doomer who came here for no other reason than to spread your pessismism about the future, but maybe I'm wrong. Think about it, wouldn't it be great for the ruling capitalist class if everyone believed that nothing can be done to change society? Did they maybe bash that mindset into your head and now you're unable to critically think for yourself?
@@smalbeaste No, Socialism and Communism are fictional utopia that only interest ignorat kids, and moronic adults. Capitalism is how reality works, it just is what it is.
@@Objectivityiskey
A hunter gatherer would smack the head of the person who first tried to plant raw barley. He would say: Hunting and gathering for the day is how reality works, it just is what it is.
A roman slave owner, when faced with the spartacus uprising would also said: Lay down your weapons, slave society is how reality works, it just is what it is.
A feudal lord would say (and they actually said this...) to the revolutionary bourgeoisie in france: Don't overthrow the monarchy, or give people liberal rights, private ownership or land to the peasants! feudal serfdom is how reality works, it just is what it is!
What you're doing is making an argument that capitalism is the natural order of things. But this is a false interpretation of the history of society and people have made the same argument for thousands of years. What makes you think that capitalism is the final stage in human development? Why are YOU more right than the feudal lord, who interpreted his version of the order of society in the same way?
You only think it is ''human nature'' because it is the only system you have experienced. But ''reality'' is constantly changing, sometimes rapidly. There simply is no static ''human nature''. These are FACTS, not utopian ideas!
This is the dialectical understanding of things, which is the basis for marxism.
Wow left wing Jordan Peterson
Typical grandio speech who’s smug presumptuous statements are frankly quite aggravating
Does a man sharing his knowledge intimidate you?
Less than 12 minutes into this rambling hot mess, and this guy is already wrong in so many ways. Hegel was not a giant, he was the pigmy. Hegel was a sad Nialistic fool. Let's see where this goes.
is that really your only critique?? That Hegel was a pigmy and not a giant??? u sad
@@frankid3514 lol, if only that was the extent of it.