Happiness in Postmodern, Late Capitalism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- There is arguably no greater conceptual enigma than happiness. Even in our ability to technically pin it down, its meaning, it's feeling, there's still a kernel of experience around happiness that doesn't feel complete, doesn't feel attainable. For its elastic nature, 'happiness' deserves its own personal video on this channel.
This entire channel is funded by you all. If this channel is something you enjoy, supporting keeps it alive. You receiving early access to videos, exclusive content, discord access, editing tutorials, and more! / epochphilosophy
Same exact perks if you prefer to support via the UA-cam member section:
/ @epochphilosophy
If you want to support the channel for free, use the amazon affiliate link, this helps us IMMENSELY: amzn.to/32hdeQB
Socials:
Twitter► / epochphilosophy
Instagram► / epochphilosophy
Timestamp:
Intro: 0:00
Ideological Nature(s) of Happiness: 1:17
Hegel's Alienation: 3:49
Postmodernism and Confusion: 7:18
Mark Fisher's 'Last Man': 12:02
Breakdown of Cause and Effect: 15:02
Happiness as a Problem: 16:59
A Message: 23:08
Big request incoming! These videos could not be possible without Patrons and UA-cam Members. These videos take a ton of time, effort, and resources. And I couldn't do it without that level of support. I try to give back as much as possible. We have exclusive content, voting on future videos, discord access, early access to videos, and editing tutorials! Giant thank you in advance to anyone willing to support!
Patreon: www.patreon.com/epochphilosophy
UA-cam Member: 'Join' button above!
Hello. I think im the only one in the comments section that was totally blown away by the many terms used in your video that I was unfamiliar of. Correct me if im wrong, but was the main message of the video was to illustrate how happiness as a fleeting emotion is often very difficult to obtain because of the elusive nature of it? (i probably got this interpretation wrong.) If so, what are your opinion on how Aristotle views happiness: the quality of a whole human life, determined by intrinsic (exercising intellectual and moral virtues) and extrinsic circumstances (health, wealth, adequate frienship0, civil liberty, knowledge, etc). And If I happen to be totally off point, could you recommend me some books to understand your points more?
Is The Epoch Times one of your sister channels and are they still working with Fallon gong terrorists?
Consider going outside@@torrentialaim6877
I feel that vibe check; seamless on the script too bro
Thanks my guy, I learn from the best.
Love to see mom and dad getting along. Legit my two fav philo channels
@@reverendsteveii💀who’s mom and who’s dad ?
Your country's average iq is under 100 points
thank you@@epochphilosophy !
I feel that Byugn-Chun Han works especially from his books "The Burnout Society" and "The Expulsion of the other" would contribute to this discussions. Since Han argues that in today's time we view that a good life only consist of positive things and rejecting any sense of negative experiences will cause us to adapt behavior that are harmful for oneself and others. That we will happily burn ourselves out because we have to become autentic from the rest.
Thanks, I've given The Expulsion of the Other a read and it's very interesting.
Revisiting this comment. I made a video on Han since!
Han is an excellent author. I'd love to see more content on his work.
I think the happiness urge comes from an innate understanding of tribal trust. Tribes that were deep in a social cohesion that gave everyone a rewarding and unforced sense of shared purpose would have had happiness as a natural byproduct. It's like a healthy loving family environment. I think we know in a visceral way that when everyone is getting their needs met, it feels good. But, I think, we can lose track of actual happiness in dysfunctional or trauma based environments, remembering the feeling as a sense in the body, something to be missed, but mistaking all sorts of things, particularly pleasurable or power amplifying things.., for the hopeful source of happiness.
Dude, I feel like this video finally hammered in the one screwed up nail that always stuck out no matter what I did.
Thank you.
Super happy to hear. That's the goal.
@@epochphilosophy The day Michael Brooks died is the happiest day of my life.
TIME TRAVELER
Oh man, my biases are being reinforced. Amazing!
Fantastic video as usual. This reminds me the Heidegger quote in Poetry, Language and Thought
“Man acts as though he is the shaper of language, while in fact language remains the master of man. Perhaps it’s man’s subversion to this dominance that drives his nature to alienation”
In Penguin Classics’ version of Plato’s Republic, there’s a piece of commentary that points to how the Greek word for ‘happy’ back then most commonly referred to a general strength of character instead of a fleeting emotion. I found that very intriguing, and it aligns with this video’s argument to question the very concept of happiness - after all, if it was defined differently in the past, what’s stopping us from understanding it differently in the present and future?
To put it in another way, maybe “happiness” itself isn’t fictitious, but the way we understand it today, as something fleeting that we constantly chase (which corresponds to the ethos of capitalism) needs to be radically questioned. Perhaps looking at how different cultures understood happiness and what values/ethical standards it promotes could be a start in that direction.
As always, thank you for the video! I have been struggling with these themes and it was very cathartic for me to listen to (bearing in mind the state of nihilism reflected by that desire for catharsis).
The ancient Greek philosophers had competing ideas. Ideas such as areté (virtue of character), eudaemonia (happiness), and ataraxia (equanimity).
"the Greek word for ‘happy’ back then most commonly referred to a general strength of character instead of a fleeting emotion" -- indeed. In a certain context, the Old Greek word for "happiness" has had this connotation of "duty" and "achieving honour".
" but the way we understand it today, as something fleeting that we constantly chase (which corresponds to the ethos of capitalism) needs to be radically questioned "
You said it!
I don’t understand how you don’t have a larger audience. Your content is top tier.
Maybe too early for traction, too critical/controversial in a "bad" (for corporate algorithm) way, or could be the name.
Epoch makes me think of Epoch Times, I.e. uncritical right wing agenda propaganda that doesn't try to self reflect at all, just pushing their narrative.
ikr it's the 5th video on my homepage recommend, it needs to be recommend to more peeps!
The algorithm controls for the truth. It controls for seriousness, sincerity, anything that doesn't have "click for instant gratification" on the label.
Your best one so far Epoch, fucking brilliant video, 10/10
I'm a Vaushite that just starting to binge on your essays after your discussion with Vaush
liked because this is probably my lane, but just enough not so to strike "vaushite" and go with something like, 'vaush seems cool and effective, i like him.' ;) but also came here from that conversation, also here to binge the epoch essays.
I too, was exposed to you, and thus your work, through Vaush, and I am glad I'm here, now.
I hope you recover
Maaaaan this is without a doubt your best video yet not only are you a great creative but I can see that you are a great learner thank you for these videos they are so helpful! One thing I would ask is maybe to slow the pace down by the end of the video I find myself a bit frazzled and confused I think a bit of space between concepts or talking points might allow for better digestion of the material
why not just pause the video to give yourself time to think about it, not like it's going anywhere
How are you not even at 100k subs? Really, top notch content.
Great video as always! The nod to self help and perpetual education at home, removed from living, can also be observed in the short story The Machine Stops by EM Forster. Freakishly accurate predictions in 1909 that highlight many of the themes in this video. Keep up the great work, love it!
In our philosophy course, we're currently discussing happiness and this is a very valuable insight. Thanks!
It seems that within this pacification is a drive for stimulation and excitement. I think lately we're finding this stimulation in collective fears. Being fearful is exciting, it gives us something to talk about and a reason to gather together when no other reason exists. And so we stay high on fear, fear of others, fear of the future, fear of loss of income, fear of unfulfillment, fear of lack of love. It's that excitement reassures us that we're still alive. And ... it's scary that we're drawn to this, which is also exciting.
That's some Adam Curtis level insight right there. Kudos.
Great content, man! I love every new video you upload. This one has to be one of your best so far.
One of the best videos I have ever encountered on this topic. Keep up the good work bro, much love from the Netherlands
Just adding my voice to the chorus. This was astonishing. Thank you.
Bump for the algorithm - great work, as usual.
This is brilliant. Great job as always
I just subscribed to your page and I've been watching your videos and these videos make it easy to comprehend the complexity of psychoanalysis and philosophy. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, but I've been drawn to this field because I believe that it also important to not only understand our material reality but to understand why we behave the way we do because of how we perceive reality and that is where I feel the answers lie. Keep up the great work you!
Sorry to hear your parents didn't care for you
@@strongestgamer2501look at your comment and the one you replied to side by side and think a bit about whose parents did a better job.
putting words of assumption;
anyhow, enjoy life, i hope you find people that share your character@@strongestgamer2501
Banging thru your catalogue. Fantastic work
On defining happiness: I also think Brave New World serves as an interesting thought experiment into happiness taken to its extreme. Humanity has come to a state where we can now eradicate unhappy feelings, everyone is polyamorous, constant communal orgasams, nobody is antisocial, etc. It seems that something is lost in pure hedonism. The freedom to strive and suffer is integral to living a fulfilling life.
I also just finished reading Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, which argues for centring struggle around meaning, as opposed to happiness. I’ve been trying to articulate what this video is getting at: our material and social conditions is also a huge factor in our wellbeing. Specifically, the seeming nature of postmodern capitalism to very much shape our desires.
There’s so much to say about this and things I’ve left out, but thanks for this extremely thoughtful video. Will have to give this another few watches.
Being polyamorous makes people happy? That’s news to me lol
Damn, this video hit different, almost felt like crying after it, don’t know why. Very eye-opening and informative ❤️
These videos are fantastic, thank you for making them.
Hence why modern psychology uses the concept of wellbeing, which includes multiple dimensions: positive affect (= happiness), meaning, relationships, etc.
It’s a more balanced scale that fits well with postcapitalist notions such as well-being economy.
It's a rare thing to see so well constructed (unfortunately too short) video about the topic on the UA-cam.
If you, or any of your listeners are interested in ontology from Marxist perspective, try reading Ernst Bloch and Gajo Petrovic.
From Bloch, I would recommend Principle of Hope, volumes I-III.
He is not the easiest author to read, but many accomplished authors who reference him, considere Bloch one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century.
I would also recommend Atheism in Christianity if you are interested in that topic. (Ofcourse the book is critical of religion)
Gajo Petrovic is much easier to read, but that does not mean his ideas are any less relevant.
Few good books, roughly translated in english are Philosophy of Praxis and Thoughts of Revolution.
I'm not sure if english translations of these books exist, altho if you know how to read it, german translations are available.
Tho I did see few of his paper written in english on the internet.
I would think the following: happiness is not something that we desire, but is the liberations of desire itself. This is not the same thing as to say that happiness is a result of obtaining the things we desire. What I am saying is that we could imagine desire as a flux, an irrational flux, which is constantly overwhelmed or blocked. In this sense, happiness is the overcoming of neurosis, which is something extremely rare, as desire is more than 90% of the time blocked: because of the demands of others, because of nature, because of ourselves, etc.
I would rather prefer not to get away with the concept of happiness, moreover since people themselves have Happiness as their sole reason for living. We should instead deconstruct the "concept" of happiness which has been sold to us, through the language of dominant ideology, and use it to confuse this language.
We could use another word, but that would be difficult for people to understand. The point is to say that Happiness is something much more radical, unconscious and unpredictable. No one desires happiness. That is true. Therefore, we should say: if the system promess you happiness, it is lying, and not only that: it is confessing its utter nonsense.
Happiness is the absence of desire but owing to the fact that most of us can not overcome our desire we've been sold another idea in its stead : un-unhappiness.
@@getthecandies One has to be careful when understanding happiness, since, as Lacan says, Capitalism confuses "jouissance" with "desire". So, whan can achieve happines in the moment we can recognise our desire (since desire can not end). We have been sold, under Capitalism, that the image of "satisfied" desire is the same as jouissance, which is not true...
Seems like the Buddhist idea of happiness you mention. An unperturbability and a liberation from the demands of desire.
I do not believe there is one happiness. There is not one kind of happiness even with conventional notions. Mostly though, it seems as if happiness is understood as some form pleasure. There is also flow, a sense of satisfaction in accomplishment, sympathetic joy and other kinds of happiness.
@@davidpeppers551 I agree. And that is precisely the reason for which I do not think is appropiate to just criticize happiness as a pha tasy created by capitalism. The problem is that capitalism wants us to believe there is only one way of happiness, which is what it calls “success”, a type of success which is the one that the same capitalism makes available.
These videos are superb!
Great video as always. You’re right about Peterson, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. However Camille paglia seems to articulate his thoughts more accurately. She speaks of the bureaucracies which have apparently overhauled American academe. And how professors along with these bureaucrats reach the heights that they do through postmodern jargon and the persona that she identifies with these “postmodernists” (oftentimes a petty disdain for art and ideas of truth among other things but “pettiness” seems to sum up what they sound like). What do you think of this?
Based Camille Paglia enjoyer
If we were 'happy' we wouldn't be watching these videos, we wouldn't be questioning, so I embrace my unhappiness to have some sort of hope. Thank you for the video.
Imo the problem is that happiness is seen as an object, but happiness is an activity, the Buddha said that there isn’t a way to happiness, happiness IS the way
Indeed, I think this may stem from our conception of time in particular which in modernity/postmodernity is flattened into a linear ontological "understanding" whereas civilizations of the past seemed to very much appreciate a cyclical understanding, as like you're saying the emergent consideration of the future is confused from our perspective as a static point of difference rather than an eternal return of sorts. All of this likely stems from our material relations but yeah this seems to be a key distinction/juxtaposition if not _the_ key distinction/juxtaposition.
@@Bisquick yeah without a sense of what is to come in the future - or a positive perception of the future - we can’t really chart our our own futures with much confidence perhaps as well, and as a result most of the time we can’t get in a position where we doing activities where happiness is the one of the by products
Happiness is what you get from stealing rich people's money.
lol, one of my thumbnails appeared in this video. XD
Great video by the way!
Could you go more into which institutions and/or experiences are alienating for the postmodern subject? The rhetoric is able to resonate with me amongst your audience, but I'd find it more penetrating if you went into some everyday examples of how this alienation is reified.
Could only jam so much into one video. Tried not to make it a video about Hegel's alienation. Hegel's commentary around institutions and alienation are often centered via religion.
Your metaphysics analyzes that which is produced, instead focus on the how of the production of its production (i.e., the dialectic of material history), as follows: communal property relations that allow for efficient production on communal means of production and thus the developing harmony of communal productive relations and developing productive relations. In turn, the production of products necessary for meeting survival is met and the surplus is freely exchanged to those in areas of less developed productive forces. In turn, again, the essential needs of more and more communal producers being met gives them time and the socio-economic relations with which the develop their communal productive forces more and more to where working time is less and less. And, with such processes achieved, the complete unification of well-development productive forces and communal production relations allows for the best mode of production and exchange. Specifically, this mode allows for said reduction of work-time through said processes. Thus, 'happiness' is achieved for all and this cycle can perpetuate ad infinitum.
Start the process of shaping your history by first holding nothing sacred, critiquing all relations and ideas at their material level, finding the language to describe it, articulate that relation, share that relation through critique, profit?... just kidding
I have to watch and rewatch this video to get it. it would be helpful to dice these dense topics up as it can be too much to consume at once. You cannot just casually watch this if you are a not familiar with anything being discussed.
I'm so fucking tired, I really needed this video for no other reason then it validated all these fucking questions I have been asking myself.
Really enjoyed this well done!
Playing Missile Command and laughing at Steven Pinker’s mullet makes me happy enough.
I came from Vaush’s community, looking forward to binging your content.
and the whole general t&e, vaporwave asthetic you got in this vid really drives home the point, but, um, then again, maybe it's just because, huh? everything looks like this now, which also drives home the point... great job!
Waiting for the video to drop but curious about Mark Fishers Last Man? I was just watching a Fisher lecture and he talks about the term being attributed to Fukuyama and then Nietzsche. Did Mark have a unique take on this concept?
So, Mark Fisher would have likely described this as 'Nietzsche's Last Man' just in contemporary form. In today's world. But, because Nietzsche was dealing with a core of modernity, his picture of Last Man is different in my mind.
Thus, I simply called it 'Mark Fisher's Last Man'. It's like Nietzche's Last Man stems from modernity, Fisher's stems from Postmodernity.
@@epochphilosophy Thanks for taking the time to answer my question!
Anytime!
@@epochphilosophy Deus Vult, fellow KKKommunist!~
@@thesummary2174 Guy.. what is your life? Are these just buzzwords you wear as an identity?
Tremendously lucid. Loved the Hegel. - Good on postmodern "state" (lol). - Very funny springboard off Nietzsche's Last Man. - Ha! Poor Vaush. Who was it that called postmodernism "that ultra leftism of the spirit"? - Victor Frankl rounds it off and suddenly the point is obvious. - That was awesome.
As always, very happy to see you include some Zizek. I’m just coming off of reading “The Year of Dreaming Dangerously” and this was a great dessert to that dinner.
I think they cherry for your dessert would be some Mark Fisher.
brilliant. utterly brilliant.
Damn. That part about alienation really hit me.
Ali nation has always been a prime part if my life. False expectations about humanity I never enjoyed 😢
Happiness as a goal makes no sense because it is implied to be a universal goal, or consequence, of the following correct ideology or logic. It should be intuitively clear that this is an absurdity. It is a simplistic goal for a radically complicated reality.
More selfishly I can say that it is my intent to be happy, but I cannot say I must be happy in order to be a worthy subject of the hypercapitalist ideology without gagging.
But is it better to be full of passion about changing the world, so I can be more happy or to patiently observe my own happiness or lack of happiness?
Nietzsche may say how it is the method of obtaining happiness which is important, and we should choose passion and struggle so as not to become "bug men". Then we are passionately struggling for the cause of passion and struggle in itself, not happiness. To achieve happiness without passionate struggle is abhorrent. This is the war of the striver and the survivor over all others, which is what I think is closer to the real underlying hypercapitalist ideology.
love your stuff
14:00 jokes on you. I'm sitting here teaching myself guitar while I listen to the video in the background 😎
I tried that once. Being left-handed it turned out to be a horrible waste of time 😢
Someone definitely gets inspiration from Adam Curtis.
Great video!
Appreciate that, friend! Actually never seen an Adam Curtis thing. Everyone raves about it so I really should check him out.
@@epochphilosophy Socialism is for lazy tools who will be used as pawns of the Cathedral
@@thesummary2174 great argument, repeat it ad nauseum please
i guess, at 19, in 1995, i didn't really understand nietzsche's lat man. that quote of a quote thou doest show @ 13:05 hits so much harder now. wow
My discontent and cultural alienation is.....profound. Like I'm living my very own dystopian novel. It sucks.
"heaven is not a place, it's a direction"
- G.B. Shaw
Very cool seeing you and Vaush!
I think the early statement you make in your video that this is a “unique point in history” in terms of the levels of unhappiness probably needs to be qualified somewhat… I would, for instance, imagine that the height of the black death or any number of other points of massive conflict and turmoil in history would probably have had some pretty negative polling data - if only it had been taken
I have not had fun or good times since the 1990s; life is work-centric nowadays.
*The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster to the human race* also we are being constantly being bombarded by over stimulation overload on propaganda and inundated with advertising and marketing. We are living in an artificial concrete jungle and we are un natural stress. Talk to tribes or small village of people they are happy for to them happy is a characteristic of usefulness and responsibility not a fleeting emotion or experience that come and go .
The ads really add to the contents of these videos
got a bitcoin ad at the beginning of video lmaooo
rip, friend
@@epochphilosophy after watching all these radical theory videos the algorithm is now forcing capital down my throat
I disagree. I don't crave accomplishment. I crave contentment. I crave not having to stress everyday about food money and shelter.
Perhaps if you had these things you'd want the next step. Maslows higherarchy of needs isn't perfect but it is pretty true
this video makes me unhappy, which makes me happy.
great video. The Radical Revolution just posted a clip of zizek on happiness, coincidentally.
I'm curious, would you ever do a video on metamodernism?
What is water , philosophers can't tell you what it is , physics can in it's most reductive way ... but not how it feels . What is happiness , philosophers can't tell you either , nor physics for that matter ( some chemists might argue ^^) , but poetry can get you very close to it . Are poetic bliss , or christian grâce going to disapeare in postmodern humans , I don't think so ... They are the only spark that keeps us going , until we drop from its pusuit .
Thanks
13:30 is crazy true
I need to rewatch Inside Out.
Great video! I for one got introduced into postmodernism by the "postmodern neomarxist cultural bolshevism conspiracy" that Peterson portrays and at first thought he was a genius. Then I actually read some Foucault and everything broke down...
Btw that thing you mentioned Peterson and other right wingers say is borrowed from the Nazis
Damn, i just realized I love dark souls when I’m depressed, and it doesn’t make me happy. But it does??
really eye opening shit. good video
Качественный контент как всегда!
The first three minutes of this video seem like the setup to the plot of a musical
I think our sense of unhappiness suffers because we promoted and lied to on a regular basis and the so-called rewards that capture our minds are not achievable for most people.
😂👍👌
love it
Oh, dear Epoch, you delve deep into the labyrinthine intricacies of postmodern despair, wielding your torch to illuminate the shadowy nooks where happiness and alienation mingle in a macabre dance. Your exploration traverses the chasms of Marxian alienation and Hegelian metaphysics, seeking the elusive specter of contentment in a world shackled by late capitalism's icy grip. Yet, your quest, though noble, teeters precariously on the precipices of presuppositions that demand scrutiny from the vantage point of a pure free market-tist.
First, let us examine the notion that happiness eludes our collective grasp, an assertion predicated on the maladies of modern existence-alienation, depression, and a soul-sucking ennui pervasive among the youth. You attribute this epidemic of discontent to the structural edifices of late capitalism and digital media's siren call, leading to isolation and despair. However, might we consider that the root of this discontent lies not in the economic system per se but in the failure to embrace the unbounded potential of individual agency and technological innovation?
The tapestry of human experience is rich and varied, woven from threads of joy, sorrow, triumph, and defeat. To attribute our collective unhappiness solely to the machinations of capitalism is to overlook the myriad ways in which free markets have liberated human potential and fostered innovations that elevate the human condition. It is within this crucible of voluntary exchange and creative destruction that solutions to the malaise you describe can be found, not through the imposition of top-down ideological constructs but through the unleashing of individual creativity and ingenuity.
Moreover, your discourse ventures into the realm of Hegelian alienation, positing a metaphysical disconnection from the world as a source of our collective discontent. Yet, is this alienation not a byproduct of the very ideological frameworks that seek to bind the human spirit in chains of collectivist dogma? A pure free market perspective would argue that true liberation lies in the recognition of the sovereign individual, unencumbered by the oppressive weight of societal expectations and free to pursue happiness in its myriad forms.
As for the role of digital media in our existential angst, it is not the medium itself but how we choose to engage with it that determines its impact on our well-being. Technology, in the hands of the liberated individual, is a tool for empowerment, connection, and knowledge-sharing on an unprecedented scale. It is only when we abdicate our agency to the passive consumption of content that we fall prey to the malaise you describe.
In your quest for happiness, you invoke Zizek's critique of the pursuit of happiness as a conformist category, suggesting that true fulfillment lies beyond the hedonic treadmill of pleasure and pain. Yet, might we consider that the pursuit of happiness, in its deepest sense, is not a mere chase after ephemeral pleasures but a journey towards self-actualization and the realization of one's potential? A pure free market-tist would argue that happiness is not found in the renunciation of desire but in the alignment of one's actions with one's values, in the freedom to experiment, innovate, and create in a world unshackled by arbitrary constraints.
In conclusion, the malaise of modern existence cannot be laid at the feet of capitalism or technological advancement. Rather, it is the failure to embrace the full spectrum of human agency and the potential for technological and spiritual transcendence that lies at the heart of our discontent. Let us not seek to constrain the human spirit within the narrow confines of ideological dogma but to liberate it, to embrace the infinite possibilities that arise from individual sovereignty and the unfettered pursuit of knowledge and innovation.
Yesssss
Man is always first!
@@epochphilosophy crazy timing luck I guess. Also, immediate click.
7:54 lmao
Steven Pinker is my hero.
Amazing video
"It is absolutely not this" ...LOL
I think that even a Solarpunk Communism utopia would be imperfect enough to stay interesting in fulfilling our desire to play, losing and winning as a sick fetichization of trading suffering for the expectation of future pleasure.
It's basically dopamine, endocannabinoids, and other physiological stuff that biases us toward such behavior
Or you can become addicted to creativity, curiosity, and exploration instead, like a hypomanic Renaissance scientist always finding new interesting ideas
The only historical communisms we've known have been ridden with authoritarianism, and in the hands of clumsy and presumptuous macho-types. Please don't get the idea that I allow myself to dislike such character, it's moral and intellectual shallowness, it's gaudy irresponsibility and lurid outlook. It's far more accurate to say that I deeply despise and avoid it in my personal life, and politica. ☝️🤨🍷
@@AntonioPeralesdelHierro socialism needs to be able to defend itself from imperialism, but that doesn't invariably mean a macho dictator. Actual communism is fundamentally anarchic, it's when everyone is the government, it's the opposite from a monocracy, it's a true democracy, which in Greek means the people's rules, that the people are in control, and that's what a dictatorship of the proletariat means: that the workers are the ones that dictate the rules instead of being oppressed by the ruling class not only through the government, but all corporations(specially but not limited to the one you work for) and institutions that exist to validate the capitalist system.
Have you seen what the us does to countries that try to be socialist? All the coups, sanctions, embargoes, blockades, pirating, seizing of assets and bank accounts?
Also, we can just not have a conservative system, we don't need to repeat the past revolutions mistakes, and the ones that can see those mistakes are the ones that should be part of the revolution to make sure that we don't repeat them.
But there's no way to just reform things and be all "peace and love freedom democracy "while the us infiltrates your government and sabotages it in every way possible freely without resistance bc fighting is bad and without even being noticed bc you thought strategic spying and surveillance were too oppressive to do. No, we need to be careful and wary of traitors that want to keep the world running on an unfair system that allows them advantages and privileges.
Authoritarianism isn't inherently bad, it's what let korea resist the American occupation and develop their military to be one of the world's most powerful nations shielded from the American military offensives, yet America controls every other government and prohibits them to help Korea in any way, buy its products, sell them resources..
everything it achieved was literally against the whole damn world
And what did it achieve? Besides a massive victory against the world's most advanced army, they created a society wherein every single citizen has their own house, that's close enough to walk to the work they all have from(meaning there's NO homelessness at all nor ANY unemployment of abled citizens), everyone has the right to full and free education and healthcare, and everyone's guaranteed some food as a compliment to their salary, so people won't be malnourished. There's NO student debt and NO medical bills.
Any red scare anti-communist propaganda lies that you may believe from North Korea (almost invariably manufactured by the South Korean cia-funded think tanks and published on their literal gossip magazines that target the foolish of people) are them really worse than what the us does to migrants? To black people? To the sick people overdosing on the streets and being thrown back out in the sidewalk if they dare to beg for treatment in a hospital?
Were you able to afford your house? Bc people today won't ever be able to afford their own houses, have you seen the salary these days? The rent? The price of property? There are employed people with multiple degrees living in the streets because their salary isn't enough to pay rent somewhere close to work nor a car to drive there or Uber/public transport fees because then there's enough for rent but not for food and don't get me started on medication, have you heard about diabetes? The multiple injections needed everyday so they don't drop dead? And it's not only not-free, but expensive af to buy!? Something they need just to survive?
North Korea is a weird place, sure. But how much of the strangeness is just being different instead of inherently worse? There are definitely many, very relevant and important ways in which the supposedly dictatorial dynasty of North Korea is a better place to live than the democratic freedom land of the US of friggin' A.
Btw, it's not a dictatorship nor a dynasty, Kim jong un has less power than any western president and Asian culture itself is to blame for their family's cult-like adoration, they really just respect their elders and superiors that much.
But have you seen that they even built the faces of Kim il sung, Kim jong il and Kim Jong un into a mega monument carved on a whole entire mountain? Except it's mt Rushmore in South Dakota.
The thing about socialism is that the authoritarian power is centralized in the hands of the government that is made by and from the people, and in capitalism that power is divided into many many different groups to give a false illusion of freedom because then you can't see all oppression all at once and you're conditioned to treat it as normal. Also, in socialism they actually do something when they find something wrong, instead of "strategically allowing it" to not show their power, hide their capabilities and let people believe that they're actually free, whilst also incentivizing things like violent behaviors in poor neighborhoods to drive the prices down enough so they can gentrify it into an elitist new neighborhood and gain money with that and 100 other ways..
We're already under authoritarian regimes that spy on us and controls our lives to fulfill their interests, but the ones in power just aren't the ones in the official centralized government, but rather lobby behind the curtains to choose what we'll eat, buy, and believe; to profit on our sickness, use it to make us addicted to meth and heroin, to make sure that only the privileged get into the good schools and making sure the unprivileged can't pay for it..
We're not free, a socialist revolution would inherently mean more freedom in every way but the one where you have the illusion of being free.
I'd like to suggest to you a few videos:
On authoritarianism- by Second Thought
The L's of former socialism- by Hakim
And maybe more easily to digest, "Debunking every anticommunist argument" by Hakim too, iirc.
But no one wants to repeat the old attempts, but rather construct a new one, correcting the mistakes that were made.
I'm sure your local Marxist-Leninist party would welcome your suggestions on how to build a better socialism, or you could just watch first how they actually discuss issues and see what they actually believe and how they plan to do it successfully.
Communism represents balance, equilibrium, equity and every synonym to balance and fairness that there is, SolarPunk(see the channels "andrewism" and "our changing climate" to understand exactly what kind of solarpunk I talk about) further emphasizes the "sustainability" one, not just social and economical sustainability/balance(which is communism), but also ecological sustainability as well. It begs not only for the end of oppression of the working class people by the ruling class, but also the end of the oppression of nature by those same people that through their corporations that destroy nature - not to build progress, but to profit over it and then rebury the obsolete products a few weeks later bc if they break we'll buy new ones which means they get to de-bury new materials from the earth destroying even more but keeping the wheel spinning, feeding the economical market cycle of eternal exploitation/exploration and disposal of the artificial excess created by the industry to justify its constancy and persistence, generating artificial demand for their "service" to make their products;
That's already a different kind of socialism to the ones that came before it(and China has been drifting towards this new type of socialism too, because it actually is the only way that humanity will not just survive, but thrive. Every other future will be one of harsh resilience and withstanding, of barely resisting and just maybe surviving.) and it invites innovation and new ideas to build a better world, hopefully one where authority isn't needed or at least isn't as ubiquitous as it currently is and was in former socialist experiences.
Great stuff
For someone so intrigued by the work of Mark Fisher your video's contain a lot of commercial breaks my man. 😁
Excellent quality of video aside, its cool that you used some very early performance footage of Kraftwerk.
Potential second thought crossover in the future?
this is the dialectic of hapiness!!!!
It’s ironic that the thing that will bring you happiness is giving up the search for happiness.
- Naval
Holy s*** is it breakfast because I just had a bowl of existential oats Love this channel
20:51
In a word, happychondria. Not my word, but a good one.
What about Wokery; where does it originate from?
Nice.
You don't mention Pappenheim.
Somewhat confusing happiness with pleasure
They overlap but are not the same thing
I'm not confused, i understand everything . Thats why I'm sad 😢
"No man wants to be happy, only the English want that." - Nietzsche
That's right.
@@epochphilosophy The day Michael Brooks died is the happiest day of my life.
@@thesummary2174 Ever wonder who you'd be without enemies or spite to define you?
@@thesummary2174 how sad does your life have to be in order to think that...
Life is a mind phuk!
Have we not figured this out yet?
I love how every time you need to debunk a false claim you just play a Jordon Peterson clip 🤣
Whoever said happiness is the ultimate goal?!
I don’t think was can just take that axiom on faith.
The first thing I do when I wake up in the morning is a figure out if I'm having a Nietzschen or Buddhist day. If I'm having a Nietzschen nothing matters. Transversely, if I'm having a Buddhist day nothing matters. Ultimately you make your own reality.
If nothing in the Buddhist day is like emptiness, then yes. I agree. Nothing matters. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.