What an amazing interview - I had tears in my eyes at 1:03:26. "It does not have t be like this. This sense that you have that you are hurting is right and you deserve not to hurt. I find that is moving, and I think that it's such a diminishing and miserly reading of socialism or communism that that would be an embarrassment." Thank you so much for such an enriching and enlightening discussion.
What would life be without pain and suffering? This movement suffers from too high a preference for comfort and an overabundance of nice-sounding but very obviously false principles.
@@ThatMans-anAnimal Tell me you've never read a socialist/communist text without telling me you've never read a socialist/communist text. Pain and suffering are literally a huge part of the class struggle, you numpty.
@@ThatMans-anAnimal There is a difference between pain and suffering that leads to contemplation, action, and an enrichening of our sense of life, and a senseless and needless pain and suffering that only serves to numb and alienate our sense of life. Grouping all types of pain and suffering under one category or another is a naïve simplification, the strawman you're attaching would take the latter as exclusively defining the nature of pain and suffering, and you of course seem to take the former.
@@kshproductions7996 you're projecting the strawman argument yourself. I never said all suffering is the same. No discussion of a typology of suffering had been introduced. The reductionist terminology was their own.
@@ThatMans-anAnimal you say "what would be life without pain and suffering?" as if the commenter is talking about all pain and suffering. They are not.
La utopía está en el horizonte. Camino dos pasos, ella se aleja dos pasos y el horizonte se corre diez pasos más allá. ¿Entonces para qué sirve la utopía? Para eso, sirve para caminar Eduardo Galeano
I'm still listening to this and thoroughly enjoy it. Regarding the question made about priority given to social class over other things: race, gender, etc, my feeling is that although those issues are important, who controls the wealth and power in society: capital, the state, the means of production and distribution, is crucial, and if they are controlled by a small minority of people then perhaps inevitably the result will be inequality even in democratic societies. The subject of social class inequality and poverty is still very relevant, although it doesn't seem to be as fashionable nowadays or get talked about as much as some other issues, and it's perhaps partly for this reason that many working class people in Western Europe no longer identify with the left.
He’s right in a certain sense about Marx’s project being incompatible with a teleological view of history insofar as the Manifesto is a call-to-arms, and something so deterministic should not require a call to action in order to occur. But this is a mistake. It forgets the history of the ‘lazy argument’, sometimes called the ‘lazy reason’ or the ‘lazy sophism’. Such an argument held that there is no need for action because things are pre-determined regardless of what we do. The problem is, even if Marx and the rise of Marxism was pre-determined, it still required the actions of Marx and his progenitors in order to realize this reality.
It would by interesting, sir, if you explained how you understand "rational" and "irrational". In mathematics and computation the concepts are clear. One can argue about real existence of irrational numbers (like ancient did, starting from the sqrt(2) - which has consequences for our understanding of geometry), but even putting their existence aside, we (both humans and human built computers) have inbuilt mechanisms of forceful termination of computations, that would take too long. We then either use the truncated result, or some heuristic, which we find convincing. It would add much credibility to the discussion, if you both found a place to at least signal a huge progress in the theory of evolution*. The one thing, that deserves most attention (and, in your discussion, was gently glided over the surface of) is a dearest of path of monotonous growth of fitness. There is huge ongoing collective effort, in both mathematics and experimental community, to shed some light on the subject of evolution and progress, whatever the latter might mean. *of complex systems, so mixtures of chemical compounds, isolated microbial environments, plants, animals, humans and human societies
He doesn't "promote it", he clearly says it is an inevitable consequence of capitalism which turns family relations into monetary ones. For god's sake, learn to read before criticising.
I think both speakers are interesting, and I understand that history is there to be discussed. But if I see one more discussion of the communist manifesto I think I’m going to jump off a high-rise building … OTHER theorists and ideas exist
I dare you to name them. I dare you to do more. You have a duty to expose the consequences of running the system according to these theories (?) Communism can not exist without elimination of individuals with well above average proclivity to accumulate private wealth. Capitalism, on the other hand, can not exist without advertising a myth of getting rich quick. The discussion navigates very cautiously about these conflicting paradigms of social life. In fact, both China Miéville and Lea Ypi do everything in their power to avoid the hard questions. How does the (process of construction of) the system affect the evolution of a human being within it? How can any meaningful critique emerge in a system of total surveillance and total (mostly financial) control?
@@Suav58what about communism necessitates anything you said. Also, ideologically begging the question when you try to make a dichotomy between communism “eliminating” people, with the worst of capitalism only being that there are get quick rich schemes. Come on, be honest. I don’t think you’ve actually interacted with any Marxist writing.
@@Suav58 I don’t turn a blind eye to capitalism exterminating people, that’s why I advocate for an egalitarian mode of production like socialism. Probably not what you mean to say 🤭
@@princegobi5992 What is your definition of socialism? Mussolini and Hitler claimed to be "true" socialists. They both claimed to be able to force the capitalist class to do their bidding. To what extent was it true? What were the points of divergence between Othmar Spann's "Corporate State", fascism and nazism? What values and in what order of priorities would you list and write on a banner of socialism? There is a, so called, agenda problem. How is socialism supposed to deal with it?
China Melville he is a great person, as well as an excellent writer, he won't change a thing about this horrible ultra-liberal capitalism, but he remains great. An affectionate greeting from Milan Italy
I loved this. Thank you for hosting this talk.
What an amazing interview - I had tears in my eyes at 1:03:26. "It does not have t be like this. This sense that you have that you are hurting is right and you deserve not to hurt. I find that is moving, and I think that it's such a diminishing and miserly reading of socialism or communism that that would be an embarrassment." Thank you so much for such an enriching and enlightening discussion.
What would life be without pain and suffering? This movement suffers from too high a preference for comfort and an overabundance of nice-sounding but very obviously false principles.
@@ThatMans-anAnimal Tell me you've never read a socialist/communist text without telling me you've never read a socialist/communist text. Pain and suffering are literally a huge part of the class struggle, you numpty.
@@ThatMans-anAnimal There is a difference between pain and suffering that leads to contemplation, action, and an enrichening of our sense of life, and a senseless and needless pain and suffering that only serves to numb and alienate our sense of life. Grouping all types of pain and suffering under one category or another is a naïve simplification, the strawman you're attaching would take the latter as exclusively defining the nature of pain and suffering, and you of course seem to take the former.
@@kshproductions7996 you're projecting the strawman argument yourself. I never said all suffering is the same. No discussion of a typology of suffering had been introduced. The reductionist terminology was their own.
@@ThatMans-anAnimal you say "what would be life without pain and suffering?" as if the commenter is talking about all pain and suffering. They are not.
Utterly brilliant discussion. Thank you for sharing!
Thanks, thoughtful discussion
I was so disappointed I missed out on the original stream, so thank you for this.
La utopía está en el horizonte. Camino dos pasos, ella se aleja dos pasos y el horizonte se corre diez pasos más allá. ¿Entonces para qué sirve la utopía? Para eso, sirve para caminar
Eduardo Galeano
Excellent conversation!
delightful!!
This was fantastic
I'm still listening to this and thoroughly enjoy it.
Regarding the question made about priority given to social class over other things: race, gender, etc, my feeling is that although those issues are important, who controls the wealth and power in society: capital, the state, the means of production and distribution, is crucial, and if they are controlled by a small minority of people then perhaps inevitably the result will be inequality even in democratic societies.
The subject of social class inequality and poverty is still very relevant, although it doesn't seem to be as fashionable nowadays or get talked about as much as some other issues, and it's perhaps partly for this reason that many working class people in Western Europe no longer identify with the left.
He’s right in a certain sense about Marx’s project being incompatible with a teleological view of history insofar as the Manifesto is a call-to-arms, and something so deterministic should not require a call to action in order to occur. But this is a mistake. It forgets the history of the ‘lazy argument’, sometimes called the ‘lazy reason’ or the ‘lazy sophism’. Such an argument held that there is no need for action because things are pre-determined regardless of what we do. The problem is, even if Marx and the rise of Marxism was pre-determined, it still required the actions of Marx and his progenitors in order to realize this reality.
It would by interesting, sir, if you explained how you understand "rational" and "irrational". In mathematics and computation the concepts are clear. One can argue
about real existence of irrational numbers (like ancient did, starting from the sqrt(2) - which has consequences for our understanding of geometry), but even putting their existence aside, we (both humans and human built computers) have inbuilt mechanisms of forceful termination of computations, that would take too long. We then either use the truncated result, or some heuristic, which we find convincing.
It would add much credibility to the discussion, if you both found a place to at least signal a huge progress in the theory of evolution*. The one thing, that deserves most attention (and, in your discussion, was gently glided over the surface of) is a dearest of path of monotonous growth of fitness. There is huge ongoing collective effort, in both mathematics and experimental community, to shed some light on the subject of evolution and progress, whatever the latter might mean.
*of complex systems, so mixtures of chemical compounds, isolated microbial environments, plants, animals, humans and human societies
JUNE 1850 MONSTER MARX PROMOTING ABOLITION OF THE FAMILY
GETS HIS READER CARD FROM A LIBRARY THAT SHOULD BE NAMED THE MONSTER MARX LIBRARY
Lmao “monster Marx”. Have you actually read any of his works?
He doesn't "promote it", he clearly says it is an inevitable consequence of capitalism which turns family relations into monetary ones. For god's sake, learn to read before criticising.
We really need China to have a talk like this with Douglas Murray
Murray is an sub average Eton fascist
with or without pistols
I think both speakers are interesting, and I understand that history is there to be discussed.
But if I see one more discussion of the communist manifesto I think I’m going to jump off a high-rise building … OTHER theorists and ideas exist
I dare you to name them. I dare you to do more. You have a duty to expose the consequences of running the system according to these theories (?) Communism can not exist without elimination of individuals with well above average proclivity to accumulate private wealth. Capitalism, on the other hand, can not exist without advertising a myth of getting rich quick. The discussion navigates very cautiously about these conflicting paradigms of social life. In fact, both China Miéville and Lea Ypi do everything in their power to avoid the hard questions. How does the (process of construction of) the system affect the evolution of a human being within it? How can any meaningful critique emerge in a system of total surveillance and total (mostly financial) control?
@@Suav58what about communism necessitates anything you said. Also, ideologically begging the question when you try to make a dichotomy between communism “eliminating” people, with the worst of capitalism only being that there are get quick rich schemes. Come on, be honest. I don’t think you’ve actually interacted with any Marxist writing.
@@princegobi5992 I live it on your conscience to see or turn a blind eye on capitalism exterminating people.
@@Suav58 I don’t turn a blind eye to capitalism exterminating people, that’s why I advocate for an egalitarian mode of production like socialism. Probably not what you mean to say 🤭
@@princegobi5992 What is your definition of socialism? Mussolini and Hitler claimed to be "true" socialists. They both claimed to be able to force the capitalist class to do their bidding. To what extent was it true? What were the points of divergence between Othmar Spann's "Corporate State", fascism and nazism?
What values and in what order of priorities would you list and write on a banner of socialism?
There is a, so called, agenda problem. How is socialism supposed to deal with it?
China Melville he is a great person, as well as an excellent writer, he won't change a thing about this horrible ultra-liberal capitalism, but he remains great. An affectionate greeting from Milan Italy