😡.... Dutch isn't just famous for the granting of the oldest of profession of prostitution you know.. It is a think tank for humanity as well.. hmmmm... 😡
0:15 Based On Dialectical Materialism 0:48 Marx starts from Hegel 1:25 Structure, where we can find it. 2:10 Human Needs (sounds like Maslow) 2:55 Instability caused by Class Struggle. 3:07 Class (Noble/Serf Bourgeoise/Proletariat) 3:42 Different Classes, Different Interests, Class Struggle moves history forward 4:43 Thesis/AntiThesis Synthesis. Proletariat Revolution. Repeat 5:35 The End of History Hegel is optimistic, Marx is pessimistic 6:55 Marx- End of History is a society without Class. 8:40 Law and Freedom 10:11 Danger of removing Human Freedom 10:37 Carl Popper
I've been slowly making my way through this video series. Even these years later, I am highly impressed by how well composed and delivered the series is. I'm taking many notes and following strings and tangents towards my own interests (philosophy of science and history of human culture that might tell us more about what to expect of the future of our culture as well as how we might one day learn of the cultures of extraterrestrial civilizations). Well done!
Decent video, but Marx made it quite clear that each stage was a positive development. He explained that capitalism was necessarily better than feudalism and etc. Conveying Marxism as seeing everything as negative until the end stage isn't correct. In addition, Marx did not say communism was our next stage -- socialism is. This is such a massive error it's sort of ridiculous.
@@Markmix123 what's the difference between communism and socialism? They seem to be very similar, but Hitler called his party "The national socialist party". It was nationalistic which I guess is why the left doesn't really consider it true socialism. But if Communism and socialism are very close to each other idealogicaly ,than why did Hitler (the socialist) hate Communism so much?
@@davidsheriff9274 that's a very good question, Hitler hated socialists very much because he actually was not one by a long shot. There is a lot of confusion surrounding his politics on that part, but the main thing to keep in mind is that he basically saw that socialism was becoming very popular, and he wanted to co-opt that popularity for his own movement, so he called his party national socialist, in order to gain popularity. This might also explain the red color scheme used. Hitler himself in his book explains that he hates socialism and Marxism with a passion, and the decisions he made in power were anything but socialist. Communists and socialists of course also despise the fact that Hitler used racism and anti semitism and all this other nasty bigotry to internally divide the proletariat, while socialists or communists want to bring them together! The term privatisation, (denoting the practice of taking a certain industry out of state hands and giving it to private enterprise, certainly anti socialist) was even specifically coined to describe his economic policy. It does get a little bit more tricky though when looking at the rest of his economics, but socialist they were certainly not. As for the difference between socialism and communism, it is mostly how you interpret these two. Marx used to use the word socialist very little, preferring to use the word communist. What he saw was that capitalism would have to go to communism in time, so first there would be a transitionary period from capitalism to communism. Then, once that was finished you would have the lower phase of communism, where the state (in the Marxist sense) , money, and therefore classes would all be abolished, but there would still be a material incentive for work in the form of labour vouchers. The higher phase of communism does away with these vouchers completely and functions on the basis of from each according to their ability to each according to their need. The lower phase of communism is what Lenin referred to as socialism, and that has stuck by many people. The real concrete difference does lay in how you define either, since people use those words a lot in different ways
@@davidsheriff9274 I always see Hitler calling himself socialist in the same way as North Korea calling itself democratic, just because it is in the name does not mean much :)
Social laws regulate the struggle over material Scarcity. Modern technological society *is* the VERY first to essentially promise an END to Scarcity. With no Scarcity to struggle over -- there is an end to struggle. And thus to law and class society. 'Freedom' -- being the understanding of the limits of necessity -- becomes, in post-Scarcity, what bourgeois libertarians understand as 'true freedom'. Us marxists call it 'Communism'. Therein lies your purported contradiction over 'Freedom' vs. Necessity. Not an issue, actually. Don't quote capitalist apologist Popper. You embarrass yourself.
I think he is implying that the 'communist' states that we saw in the 20th century were not communist in the way in which Marx understood it, which would be a state (or rather: a world without states) in which individual freedom is the highest good. What we saw was rather the establishment of strict laws that would supposedly create equality between all people - something which ended up as the exact opposite of what it set out to become. That is also to say that many people now understand communism to be something entirely different from what it is/was supposed to be, and that we have never seen what communism 'really' looks like.
Basically Marx presented 2 ideas that seemed to contradict each other. One is that history follows a "law" or pattern. If this is the case the free will of any individual is not important because it is almost predestined what will happen because of the inherent contradictions within the society. This contrary idea is of human freedom, that man has an affect on history so he should act and seize the day. I think perhaps the truth is a synthesis of these ideas where the march of history forward is perhaps inevitable because humans desire to be free and not to be machine cogs and piano keys.
Hello! You have mentioned in Marx's theory, there are two things in tension: freedom vs. law; and you said Marx stressed the former one, namely the freedom, more----if so, can you please tell me in which book(s) of Marx he gave a priority to freedom instead of law? Thank you!
A society where every single individual has a say of every single product being made. While humane laws remain intact. It's mind-blowing how there are people dumb enough to think that's possible
@@Dimitris_Half and Co-opts, yes, of course we have some say in these types of businesses. But is it possible for all of us to have a say of all the products being made? Is it possible For individuals of a large corporation to even have an equal say there? I’d say no.
@@FilipPandrc You can't have democracy, let alone communism, without some central planning And even if you could give everyone a say, sometimes the say of the majority is wrong If say factory workers get a majority say, you think they won't save time and money by dumping their waste in the nearby river? That mostly doesn't pertain to them anyways, so why should they get a say of it? It doesn't quite make sense.
@@f-lor4 True, however, it doesn't change the fact tho. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Someone being an idiot doesn't mean they are always right. For all his intelligence and contribution, Popper was still heavily biased and quite underexposed to the work of Hegel. Let me give you a simple insight into Hegel. Every scholar and intellectual of their time has always been at the mercy or at least subject to their govt or current hegemonic power, thus they always play within its boundaries and in effect accrue a flaw in their work. An example is the most esteemed Immanuel Kant. Despite all his contributions and is arguably the greatest philosopher, he was still subject to the deluded idea of "Eugenics justifiable slavery". Everyone is "EthnoCentric, or at least nation-centric to some extent" otherwise they became anxious unless they expose themselves more to other "truths" of life and reality, psychology 101. Why state this, simply because Hegel in all his rigor and valor was a Eurocentrist as expected. I mean what does one expect when they read about someone who looked out his window to see Germany under siege by Napoleon. Despite the fact, he had the ball to propose an ideology, pov, and philosophy that somewhat "explicitly excluded", yet "implicitly includes" all of the other ethnicities, civilizations such as African history, to culminate in a grand theory of historical development that's holds weight to this day
Nonono. Marx simply tells us that IF we want to develop the form of society further THEN communism is the next stage we will have to reach. Nothing is inevitable for Marx - man makes her own history.
Interesting that this Marx got so powerful and popular that nothing of what we have learned so far about science and logics can be used. We cannot ask anything about his sacred Idea.. We cannot ask the real goals of the Communists... (Besides we know it is Just about using words of order as social justice, egalitarianism, rights of women, blacks, LGBTQ, workers... But once they reach Power they do everything to keep It)... That's a shame Marx became sacred and his real intentions cannot be questioned...
@@caffeinator1849 Thank you for your comments. When I was Young I used to think It was a good Idea. Nowadays I see It as a kind of Pharaonism. Lies and despise from elite to regular people. If there is no God above us, there is nothing wrong in enslaving people. But... I may be wrong... Who knows... Have a nice week.
@@akashin6385 Bruh, More Population = Large Market = Huge pool of cheap labour => (at the cost of) Environmental destruction. Its not a badge of honor. ROFL
I don't know where Marx studied history, but even Capitalism was not a result of mythical "class struggle". Capitalism was a result of some brilliant technological and intellectual ideas(Enlightenment period), that came together and synthesized new approach to the economy and manufacturing processes. His theory is very primitive and generalized. Servant could have as much different goals as Nobles, but nothing would have ever changed if there were no new ideas and technologies invented by individuals.
The question is did you study history? Capitalism was the result of the class struggle of the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy and the church because the merchants wanted more power to decide the politics of a country to improve their businesses. That caused the french revolution. Once the bourgeoisie got in power the exchange of goods, people and ideas became more frequent and it created the environment for new scientific ideas which were then promoted by the business owners to industrialize their businesses. The Enlightenment didn’t came from nowhere.
@@jojobad1796 I have very bad news for you... You have a total mess in your head, which is provided by Marxist primitive look at historical facts. Capitalism, as we know it, was established in Britain, not France. French revolution had nothing to do with it - absolutely different background. First of all, capitalism was a fusion of engineering successes and Enlightenment ideas of the role of an individual man in life. These successes weren't provided by mythical CLASSES, but by INDIVIDUALS from absolutely different social groups. How you can be so naive to think that some mythical "class struggle" can lead to something great? You can struggle how much you want, there must be some decent background for it, and the background for capitalism had been merging for CENTURIES.
@@TyyylerDurden @John Benidick Latna according to this ua-cam.com/video/dIuaW9YWqEU/v-deo.html the first capitalist society was the Dutch Republic, well before the French revolution but it did come about through the peoples/merchant's disdain of aristocratic society?
@@LizDcruzzie of course. New ideas, new approaches, new technologies, new understanding of A MAN as an individual, who is possible to do amazing things and how things must work in the most efficient way according to the new concepts - it is an EVOLUTIANARY process. Marx leeched to the French Revolution as to 100% proof of his theory, but the funniest thing that he didn't put enough attention to what happened across Atlantic Ocean, in the British colonies, and how they inspired French Revolution as an example of struggle for their RIGHTS not only to TRADE(it is a primitive thought that men are ready to spill blood for the right to extend their trading possibilities), but to TAKE CARE of your life, don't allow idiots and tyrants to decide how you live. But it isn't a predictable process, which Marx tried to tie into some kind of determinate inevitability, which allows to predict future "class struggle revolutions"; some countries were able to come to this, some not; some countries became prosperous, some not... There are NO scientific and determined trends in development of societies.
You are a gifted teacher.
This lectures are great, I love them, but communism wasn't "invented" by Marx.
Thank you Dutch Jesus
why did i audibly laugh
😡.... Dutch isn't just famous for the granting of the oldest of profession of prostitution you know..
It is a think tank for humanity as well.. hmmmm... 😡
🤣
Hahaha
0:15 Based On Dialectical Materialism
0:48 Marx starts from Hegel
1:25 Structure, where we can find it.
2:10 Human Needs (sounds like Maslow)
2:55 Instability caused by Class Struggle.
3:07 Class (Noble/Serf Bourgeoise/Proletariat)
3:42 Different Classes, Different Interests, Class Struggle moves history forward
4:43 Thesis/AntiThesis Synthesis. Proletariat Revolution. Repeat
5:35 The End of History
Hegel is optimistic, Marx is pessimistic
6:55 Marx- End of History is a society without Class.
8:40 Law and Freedom
10:11 Danger of removing Human Freedom
10:37 Carl Popper
you are an angel of efficiency
thanks
one cannot have freedom without class structure as one cannot have communism with freedom....
I've been slowly making my way through this video series. Even these years later, I am highly impressed by how well composed and delivered the series is. I'm taking many notes and following strings and tangents towards my own interests (philosophy of science and history of human culture that might tell us more about what to expect of the future of our culture as well as how we might one day learn of the cultures of extraterrestrial civilizations). Well done!
Decent video, but Marx made it quite clear that each stage was a positive development. He explained that capitalism was necessarily better than feudalism and etc. Conveying Marxism as seeing everything as negative until the end stage isn't correct.
In addition, Marx did not say communism was our next stage -- socialism is. This is such a massive error it's sort of ridiculous.
Wasn't there 'primitive communism'?
Technically he said communism is next, only the lower phase, later popularized by Lenin as called socialism
@@Markmix123 what's the difference between communism and socialism? They seem to be very similar, but Hitler called his party "The national socialist party". It was nationalistic which I guess is why the left doesn't really consider it true socialism. But if Communism and socialism are very close to each other idealogicaly ,than why did Hitler (the socialist) hate Communism so much?
@@davidsheriff9274 that's a very good question, Hitler hated socialists very much because he actually was not one by a long shot. There is a lot of confusion surrounding his politics on that part, but the main thing to keep in mind is that he basically saw that socialism was becoming very popular, and he wanted to co-opt that popularity for his own movement, so he called his party national socialist, in order to gain popularity. This might also explain the red color scheme used. Hitler himself in his book explains that he hates socialism and Marxism with a passion, and the decisions he made in power were anything but socialist. Communists and socialists of course also despise the fact that Hitler used racism and anti semitism and all this other nasty bigotry to internally divide the proletariat, while socialists or communists want to bring them together! The term privatisation, (denoting the practice of taking a certain industry out of state hands and giving it to private enterprise, certainly anti socialist) was even specifically coined to describe his economic policy. It does get a little bit more tricky though when looking at the rest of his economics, but socialist they were certainly not. As for the difference between socialism and communism, it is mostly how you interpret these two. Marx used to use the word socialist very little, preferring to use the word communist. What he saw was that capitalism would have to go to communism in time, so first there would be a transitionary period from capitalism to communism. Then, once that was finished you would have the lower phase of communism, where the state (in the Marxist sense) , money, and therefore classes would all be abolished, but there would still be a material incentive for work in the form of labour vouchers. The higher phase of communism does away with these vouchers completely and functions on the basis of from each according to their ability to each according to their need. The lower phase of communism is what Lenin referred to as socialism, and that has stuck by many people. The real concrete difference does lay in how you define either, since people use those words a lot in different ways
@@davidsheriff9274 I always see Hitler calling himself socialist in the same way as North Korea calling itself democratic, just because it is in the name does not mean much :)
wow... great way of making understanding easy such complex ideas.
Social laws regulate the struggle over material Scarcity.
Modern technological society *is* the VERY first to essentially promise an END to Scarcity.
With no Scarcity to struggle over -- there is an end to struggle. And thus to law and class society.
'Freedom' -- being the understanding of the limits of necessity -- becomes, in post-Scarcity, what bourgeois libertarians understand as 'true freedom'.
Us marxists call it 'Communism'.
Therein lies your purported contradiction over 'Freedom' vs. Necessity. Not an issue, actually.
Don't quote capitalist apologist Popper. You embarrass yourself.
this is wrong
I love the speaker's shirt
Firstly thanks brother for making us acquaint with these complex ideas.
I did not understand your last point regarding law and freedom
I think he is implying that the 'communist' states that we saw in the 20th century were not communist in the way in which Marx understood it, which would be a state (or rather: a world without states) in which individual freedom is the highest good. What we saw was rather the establishment of strict laws that would supposedly create equality between all people - something which ended up as the exact opposite of what it set out to become. That is also to say that many people now understand communism to be something entirely different from what it is/was supposed to be, and that we have never seen what communism 'really' looks like.
Basically Marx presented 2 ideas that seemed to contradict each other. One is that history follows a "law" or pattern. If this is the case the free will of any individual is not important because it is almost predestined what will happen because of the inherent contradictions within the society. This contrary idea is of human freedom, that man has an affect on history so he should act and seize the day.
I think perhaps the truth is a synthesis of these ideas where the march of history forward is perhaps inevitable because humans desire to be free and not to be machine cogs and piano keys.
What a great series!
very clear and informative lecture, thank you.
Alternate title:
*Chapter 3.4: Karl Marx and the other kind of Fascism*
nice shirts. just wondering, are these videos part of an online course one can sign up and dig in more? thanks
Amin Zargarian these are part of a course at Leiden university, unfortunately it's not an online course but only for humanities students at Leiden
Very high quality lectures with efficient delivery of key points in an easy casual style. Thank you!
A very good explanation. Appreciated brooo
Can philosophy be discussed without the inclusion of political ideas?
This guy needs to read some lenin vs kautsky
Marx didn't invent communism.. communists did.
Marx did not invent Communism at all.
Full of very obvious errors.
Following Marx, once comunism is reached, history begins and not stops!
Hello! You have mentioned in Marx's theory, there are two things in tension: freedom vs. law; and you said Marx stressed the former one, namely the freedom, more----if so, can you please tell me in which book(s) of Marx he gave a priority to freedom instead of law? Thank you!
I believe it would be in his earlier works, prior to writing the manifesto
Could be that those who lost power to Stalin began talking about freedom.
That's not what it's for, you're subject to law for the price of freewill, with a delay and they just want more while they break section 300 to 400.
Too good.. thanks
Excellent video
Hard broer
A society where every single individual has a say of every single product being made. While humane laws remain intact.
It's mind-blowing how there are people dumb enough to think that's possible
@@emmanueloluga9770 idk what you're saying but i like it
@@Dimitris_Half and Co-opts, yes, of course we have some say in these types of businesses.
But is it possible for all of us to have a say of all the products being made?
Is it possible For individuals of a large corporation to even have an equal say there? I’d say no.
how did you come to that conclusion?
@@FilipPandrc You can't have democracy, let alone communism, without some central planning
And even if you could give everyone a say, sometimes the say of the majority is wrong
If say factory workers get a majority say, you think they won't save time and money by dumping their waste in the nearby river?
That mostly doesn't pertain to them anyways, so why should they get a say of it? It doesn't quite make sense.
Please do one for Feuerbach. Thanks
never understood the attention given to Marx...
exactly
Very good video my friend
Popper wasn't really very good on Hegel, Marx etc. Most scholars don't rate him in this area.
most scholars are idiots...
@@f-lor4 True, however, it doesn't change the fact tho. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Someone being an idiot doesn't mean they are always right. For all his intelligence and contribution, Popper was still heavily biased and quite underexposed to the work of Hegel.
Let me give you a simple insight into Hegel. Every scholar and intellectual of their time has always been at the mercy or at least subject to their govt or current hegemonic power, thus they always play within its boundaries and in effect accrue a flaw in their work. An example is the most esteemed Immanuel Kant. Despite all his contributions and is arguably the greatest philosopher, he was still subject to the deluded idea of
"Eugenics justifiable slavery". Everyone is "EthnoCentric, or at least nation-centric to some extent" otherwise they became anxious unless they expose themselves more to other "truths" of life and reality, psychology 101. Why state this, simply because Hegel in all his rigor and valor was a Eurocentrist as expected. I mean what does one expect when they read about someone who looked out his window to see Germany under siege by Napoleon. Despite the fact, he had the ball to propose an ideology, pov, and philosophy that somewhat "explicitly excluded", yet "implicitly includes" all of the other ethnicities, civilizations such as African history, to culminate in a grand theory of historical development that's holds weight to this day
Popper wasn't really very good.
The opposition of classes is what moves history forward
Marx
Nonono. Marx simply tells us that IF we want to develop the form of society further THEN communism is the next stage we will have to reach. Nothing is inevitable for Marx - man makes her own history.
but is this want for freedom inevitable amongst men? are we not always trying to prove that we are men and not machine parts
Interesting that this Marx got so powerful and popular that nothing of what we have learned so far about science and logics can be used.
We cannot ask anything about his sacred Idea..
We cannot ask the real goals of the Communists...
(Besides we know it is Just about using words of order as social justice, egalitarianism, rights of women, blacks, LGBTQ, workers... But once they reach Power they do everything to keep It)...
That's a shame Marx became sacred and his real intentions cannot be questioned...
You literally just asked it, and so did nearly every everybody in academia
@@caffeinator1849 Thank you for your comments.
When I was Young I used to think It was a good Idea.
Nowadays I see It as a kind of Pharaonism.
Lies and despise from elite to regular people.
If there is no God above us, there is nothing wrong in enslaving people.
But...
I may be wrong...
Who knows...
Have a nice week.
Based
Capitalism can never die. Change my mind!😂
Maybe, but it kills us all before it kills itself
@@bengalurudiaries1523 Nah, we've reached 7 billion under Capitalism.
@@akashin6385 Bruh, More Population = Large Market = Huge pool of cheap labour => (at the cost of) Environmental destruction. Its not a badge of honor. ROFL
I don't know where Marx studied history, but even Capitalism was not a result of mythical "class struggle". Capitalism was a result of some brilliant technological and intellectual ideas(Enlightenment period), that came together and synthesized new approach to the economy and manufacturing processes.
His theory is very primitive and generalized. Servant could have as much different goals as Nobles, but nothing would have ever changed if there were no new ideas and technologies invented by individuals.
The question is did you study history? Capitalism was the result of the class struggle of the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy and the church because the merchants wanted more power to decide the politics of a country to improve their businesses. That caused the french revolution. Once the bourgeoisie got in power the exchange of goods, people and ideas became more frequent and it created the environment for new scientific ideas which were then promoted by the business owners to industrialize their businesses. The Enlightenment didn’t came from nowhere.
@@jojobad1796 I have very bad news for you... You have a total mess in your head, which is provided by Marxist primitive look at historical facts.
Capitalism, as we know it, was established in Britain, not France. French revolution had nothing to do with it - absolutely different background.
First of all, capitalism was a fusion of engineering successes and Enlightenment ideas of the role of an individual man in life. These successes weren't provided by mythical CLASSES, but by INDIVIDUALS from absolutely different social groups.
How you can be so naive to think that some mythical "class struggle" can lead to something great? You can struggle how much you want, there must be some decent background for it, and the background for capitalism had been merging for CENTURIES.
@@TyyylerDurden @John Benidick Latna according to this ua-cam.com/video/dIuaW9YWqEU/v-deo.html the first capitalist society was the Dutch Republic, well before the French revolution but it did come about through the peoples/merchant's disdain of aristocratic society?
@@LizDcruzzie of course. New ideas, new approaches, new technologies, new understanding of A MAN as an individual, who is possible to do amazing things and how things must work in the most efficient way according to the new concepts - it is an EVOLUTIANARY process. Marx leeched to the French Revolution as to 100% proof of his theory, but the funniest thing that he didn't put enough attention to what happened across Atlantic Ocean, in the British colonies, and how they inspired French Revolution as an example of struggle for their RIGHTS not only to TRADE(it is a primitive thought that men are ready to spill blood for the right to extend their trading possibilities), but to TAKE CARE of your life, don't allow idiots and tyrants to decide how you live. But it isn't a predictable process, which Marx tried to tie into some kind of determinate inevitability, which allows to predict future "class struggle revolutions"; some countries were able to come to this, some not; some countries became prosperous, some not... There are NO scientific and determined trends in development of societies.