Far left(marxism) and Far Right(Fascism) both emanated from the hegelian school of thought. Hegel's dialectical method of arriving at a definite conclusion which can be treated as absolute having gone through a continuous process of "negation of negation" gave birth to such extremist ideologies demanding loyalty, allegience, blood and sacrifices from their followers. When truth itself is treated as absolute, use of brute force seems to be a legitimate instrument of maintaining the absolute truth.
The word "revolution " was understood as a negative sence until Marx arrived with his humungous knowledge ( study)... Turn the phylosophy of "revolution"...
@@TechnoBachelor It's not bout being poor or marginalised, it's bout who is dominant enough to exploit the relatively marginalised and weaker class in the society. Marxism is rooted in materialism and thus, it stresses on the materialistic aspect of mankind wherein economic structure(base) alone is capable of inducing dynamic changes in the superstructure (politics, religion, art, philosophy, literature and family etc). Full satisfaction of material needs is central to the idea of Marxism, cuz without production in the society, everything would hardly make any sense. Marx was inspired by hegel's dialectical method of producing synthesis outta combination of thesis and antithesis(negation of negation) to arrive at the theory of class struggle by dwelling on the principles of historical materialism wherein contradictions remained inherent because of distorted relationship between means and forces of production. Social relations in each historical epoch were an outcome of changes in ownership of means of production giving birth to 2 antagonistic classes having contradictory interests in society. Revolution according to Marx was more natural than being a necessity for such a change since the concept of private property had made it practically impossible to impede a violent revolution. Hence, the struggle between haves and have nots would remain perpetual until the power finally falls in the hands of the proletariats and for this thing to happen, Capitalism must reveal its darkest side which is deeply embedded in the doctrine of laissez faire. Here, it's important to understand that Marx wasn't inspiring the workers to overthrow their factory owners through a violent revolution, but was simply contemplating the possibility of an inevitable revolution once capitalism in its advanced stage results in the ruination of the working class to the extent that proletariats would be left with no viable alternative than to seize power.
No true communist revolution ever took place in any part of the world. The proletariats in Russian and Chinese revolution don't fit the description of marx's proletariat, cuz he never envisaged an illiterate legion of peasantry still tied in feudal land relations to overthrow the Bourgeoise by a violent revolution. A truly communist revolution would've started from advanced industrial societies like Germany or Britain wherein the working class consciousness was gradually taking shape as a result of free market competition and capital accumulation. On the other hand, economic structure in Russia and China was deeply agrarian and in Russia, Tsars took keen interest in the development of capitalism and pacifying the liberals to avoid a bourgeoise revolution. Thus, revolution in Russia didn't follow the chronology of marxist historical materialism and lenin had peasants involved in a violent revolution to overthrow the monarchy which according to marx would be done by the bourgeoise and not the proletariats let alone Peasantry. Marx isn't to blame, but only folks like Lenin who were ambitious enough to seize power outta their personal enmities with the monarchy. Therefore, the so-called Bolshevik revolution was still a pro-burgeoise revolution that took place under the facade of Marxist idea of revolution giving emphasis on the development of State machinery to accelerate capital formation and accumulation. On the other hand, Britain and Germany were at the brink of a truly comminist revolution which they both avoided through the use of imperialism and fascism. Moreover, all such ideologies like Imperialism, Socialism and Fascism were invented in order to make State a source of absolute authority as envisaged in the hegelian idea of State. A powerful State would secretly serve the interests of Bourgeoise while simultaneously being an instrument of coercion and pacification to avert the possibility of a proletariat revolution. Hence, a powerful State would never culminate in a stateless and classless society giving the impression that Marx and his ideas had failed, but it's just the other way around. Fall of socialism isn't synonymous with the failure of communism, cuz if marx was wrong, liberals wouldn't have to take the help of nationalism and nation states to counter internationalism in marxist ideological discourse.
My favourite Thinker
If possible please complete the western political thought on UA-cam. It is essential for All political Science College student. Please mam 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
It is not possible 😂😂😂
You r the mother of political science
Far left(marxism) and Far Right(Fascism) both emanated from the hegelian school of thought.
Hegel's dialectical method of arriving at a definite conclusion which can be treated as absolute having gone through a continuous process of "negation of negation" gave birth to such extremist ideologies demanding loyalty, allegience, blood and sacrifices from their followers.
When truth itself is treated as absolute, use of brute force seems to be a legitimate instrument of maintaining the absolute truth.
The word "revolution " was understood as a negative sence until Marx arrived with his humungous knowledge ( study)... Turn the phylosophy of "revolution"...
*When Smriti Irani Joins Teaching Field* 😂😂
Mam ,your dialectical method of this class is giving us an adequate essence of marx,Thank you mam
One of the best Teacher 🙏
Thank you ma'am
When truth will open then things will exposed
Mam aap psir ke liye current affairs magazine start kijiye usme vienna convention wagarah include karna jo aap community par post karte hai.
Greatest 😮,
Excellent speech
Sahi baat hay log kahanian apny sunatay hain aur kehtay hain Marx said
Teacher ❤
❤
Aren't the philosophy and ideology two different things? Philosophy is disinterested and unbiased whereas ideology is partisan towards an end.
Thank you.
2/4/24
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I rarely saw as clear minded as she is bcs im a speakers trainer
Marx ne poor ke prospective se nhi likha, unki philosophy working class ko raas aati h
Who is poor then?
Is the working class not poor?
@@TechnoBachelor
It's not bout being poor or marginalised, it's bout who is dominant enough to exploit the relatively marginalised and weaker class in the society.
Marxism is rooted in materialism and thus, it stresses on the materialistic aspect of mankind wherein economic structure(base) alone is capable of inducing dynamic changes in the superstructure (politics, religion, art, philosophy, literature and family etc).
Full satisfaction of material needs is central to the idea of Marxism, cuz without production in the society, everything would hardly make any sense.
Marx was inspired by hegel's dialectical method of producing synthesis outta combination of thesis and antithesis(negation of negation) to arrive at the theory of class struggle by dwelling on the principles of historical materialism wherein contradictions remained inherent because of distorted relationship between means and forces of production.
Social relations in each historical epoch were an outcome of changes in ownership of means of production giving birth to 2 antagonistic classes having contradictory interests in society.
Revolution according to Marx was more natural than being a necessity for such a change since the concept of private property had made it practically impossible to impede a violent revolution.
Hence, the struggle between haves and have nots would remain perpetual until the power finally falls in the hands of the proletariats and for this thing to happen, Capitalism must reveal its darkest side which is deeply embedded in the doctrine of laissez faire.
Here, it's important to understand that Marx wasn't inspiring the workers to overthrow their factory owners through a violent revolution, but was simply contemplating the possibility of an inevitable revolution once capitalism in its advanced stage results in the ruination of the working class to the extent that proletariats would be left with no viable alternative than to seize power.
No true communist revolution ever took place in any part of the world.
The proletariats in Russian and Chinese revolution don't fit the description of marx's proletariat, cuz he never envisaged an illiterate legion of peasantry still tied in feudal land relations to overthrow the Bourgeoise by a violent revolution. A truly communist revolution would've started from advanced industrial societies like Germany or Britain wherein the working class consciousness was gradually taking shape as a result of free market competition and capital accumulation.
On the other hand, economic structure in Russia and China was deeply agrarian and in Russia, Tsars took keen interest in the development of capitalism and pacifying the liberals to avoid a bourgeoise revolution. Thus, revolution in Russia didn't follow the chronology of marxist historical materialism and lenin had peasants involved in a violent revolution to overthrow the monarchy which according to marx would be done by the bourgeoise and not the proletariats let alone Peasantry.
Marx isn't to blame, but only folks like Lenin who were ambitious enough to seize power outta their personal enmities with the monarchy.
Therefore, the so-called Bolshevik revolution was still a pro-burgeoise revolution that took place under the facade of Marxist idea of revolution giving emphasis on the development of State machinery to accelerate capital formation and accumulation.
On the other hand, Britain and Germany were at the brink of a truly comminist revolution which they both avoided through the use of imperialism and fascism.
Moreover, all such ideologies like Imperialism, Socialism and Fascism were invented in order to make State a source of absolute authority as envisaged in the hegelian idea of State.
A powerful State would secretly serve the interests of Bourgeoise while simultaneously being an instrument of coercion and pacification to avert the possibility of a proletariat revolution.
Hence, a powerful State would never culminate in a stateless and classless society giving the impression that Marx and his ideas had failed, but it's just the other way around.
Fall of socialism isn't synonymous with the failure of communism, cuz if marx was wrong, liberals wouldn't have to take the help of nationalism and nation states to counter internationalism in marxist ideological discourse.