@@navdeepsinghbhangu3962 i think Indian society is capitalism society in which capitalism is in it's early stage but Naxalites think that Indian society is semi feudal,i think they are backward people which are stick in older ideas.... that's why there is no progress of their movement......
Josh, this is a brilliant lecture... all cited materials were lucidly quoted and properly placed into the context.... it is very enlightening indeed to watch this... Greetings from Gaza...
I really loved learning history as a kid and came up with the same conclusions as Marx did and just really started to realize that I was Marxist the whole time when this was discussed in Political Science class in college
Just to show you how suppressed this ideas are to the general public, that lots of people come into contact with those for the first time within specialist environments were they MUST have to acknowledge they exist. I came into contact with Marxism for the first time in old Soviet printed books in second half stores and from there the work of Marxist historians like Hobsbawn. Marx himself I could read until the Internet.
Obviously this is amazing. I wish more of these amazing talks were given a visual /video overlay. I hope some comrade with the skills take time to do this.
Thanks for this! I want to replay it to digest it better, but it reminds me of a talk by Evelyn Reed, author of Woman's Evolution, and a book called Historical Materialism.
you can select English subtitles via clicking the settings cog on the video bar that appears when you run pointer over video.then select subtitles/cc then change off to on .and English auto generated .they should appear on video
I agree with you but I think that others agreement may be irrelevant. When they, have a nice life and they know or rather fear, the government will beat them with a stick what are they going to do? Drink the champagne and to hell with the proletariat. That, I think, is the real problem us communists face. It's easier to continue as before than to be honest and admit that the capitalist system doesn't work and it needs to be gone
The problem is that the first step in accepting Marxism, or even dialectical materialism, is rejecting all the notions you've been raised and indoctrinated to believe, which often means rejecting your own notions of your identity.
Many people look back on the Golden Age of Greece and its "democracy" with fondness . What they leave out it was built and progressed because slavery gave them the time and luxury to think , explain , calculate on the backs of slaves .
A suggestion for when you record future speeches, avoid a background with a face on it as the camera will continually switch focus between the real person and the face in the background.
A bit disappointed that the 1848 revolutions was not brought up in the analysis, as you could argue that it was a curtain raiser to the shift in capitalism and its development in relation to its inevitable contradiction involving its antagonism towards labour. A revolution that both occured to early and yet too late, as to its ramifications.
There is a bit of contradiction, in India Capitalism imported from West lives side by side to more ancient Feudal relations... Rather the surplus of Capitalism is enjoyed by very few who keep the rest denied to the advances. And yet there is no major revolutionary drive for people to better their lives...!
Imho, the new religion of democracy, or election based democracy is sealing India in its feudal state. There is no drive to change. The rich always get voted into office, which is intended, but the poor now brainwashed, thinking their system is still heaven compare with authoritarian china. Even when truth is right in front of you. Like the chinese comment on india: one can never wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.
Indian society is very different from Western society because it has caste system, religion as base of people's thinking and different culture....we can't understand Indian society only through Marxist perspective....
Heh? Doesn't India has a Communist Party since the 20's? and Kerala is still very strong on Communist ideas, they have a Left Front and all that has elected multiple governments even the current one. If I remember correctly it was one of the local governments that handled the COVID crisis best...
Karl Marx and Adam Smith return from the Great Beyond to have a discussion sipping coffee at a Starbucks. They reflect that ironically, they had similar views and sentiments on the nature of labor-owner relationships. Smith notes that,for example, that laborers after the Black Death had more bargaining power due to so many of them being killed off by the fatal disease. He says now they were liberated to move up ladders in the free market and gain control over the means of production. Marx says, ah, good point, but all boomerangs eventually come full circle, have you heard? Smith sees his point, they realize, like Lord Buddha, that a Middle Way Solution must emerge. I was sitting at an adjacent table and could not help but eavesdrop on the two distinguished fellas. So, I devised that solution. Click on my icon for the free audiobooks 9with graphics).
I'm starting to believe consciousness does not exist. If we loose our sense of sight, are we then sight unconscious ? Without our senses we are not conscious.
You're in a good direction 👍. Consciousness is one of those concepts that has a varnish of barely concealed mysticism and is so very I'll defined, that if you ask two specialists to define it you would get two different answers. The fact of the matter is that we still have in philosophy and psychology some concepts that are holdovers of religious thinking. Take something like Free Will for example. That is a concept that makes no sense in a universe that scientifically, has proven to be mostly deterministic. You're supposed to have the capacity to choose between different alternative course of action, alter the results of causality by your supposed individual volition. But how could you change your decisions when your mind and wants (your volition) are also the result of chains of causality? The idea that you could change or have acted in a different fashion is a fantasy that your brain create after the fact, by contemplating the results of your actions, and as a fantasy is something you can't change in actuality. In my opinion, this idea persists because it affects the material conditions of individuals, who benefit on its presence, given the fact that is one of the justifications usually given for harsh punitive justice and the basis of a lot of religious rethoric. I just watched a video from a physicist on this subject and it solidified on my mind the idea that we are only material beings: ua-cam.com/video/zpU_e3jh_FY/v-deo.html
There now exist people who are suffering from, so called, locked in syndrome. When they are given the means to communicate they show that they retain the ability to communicate, by doing so. You might say that they pass the Turing test. That seems like fair evidence that consciousness is a tenacious phenomena.
the adaptation to the existing world is mode of surviving, without which life can not exist; human nature means adaptation to the existing environment.
this adaptation is dialectical, you can say life form is adapting to the habitat but the habitat is also being adapted to the new life form. we can say this when we see our environment today. human adapting by changing their environment but environment not pasively adapting to our will. it is dialectical or reciprocal relationship
Just a reminder that you don't have to be communist to agree with communist ideas and politics. You also don't have to be a conservative to agree with some of their fiscal ideals. You don't have to be a socialist to want gov't aid for the poor. We can simply agree to take the best ideas, work them out, and apply them. When these ideas don't work, we change them. While we're fighting the billionaires are united and happily destroying the world.
he contradicts himself when he argues that there is no agency, no individuals who make history, and then mentions Marx as accepting human agency in shaping the world. Ideas change the world, and ideas are originated in learned individuals, not a bunch of random people.
As long as the historical materialist dialectic does not produce a surplus of war nor become the instrument that justifies the acceptance of human aggression you may count me as agreeable. I see Marx’s materialism as fundamentally that of Hegelian idealism, but the former lacked the integrity of accurately reporting his own findings. Marx saw and recorded the fatal flaws of capitalism as an economic criterion. I believe it was that shocking realization that made him hostile to the primary ideal of socialism; i.e. peace. If capitalism was doomed, the nation states were doomed and he just couldn’t handle it. He sought an easier softer way out - approval, appeasement, amalgamation. Marx is a staunch communist without land and he will destroy development of the conservative socialist ideal to prove it. After all the workers earned it. I am right aren’t I? The dictatorship of the proletariat can be easy or hard. You may have it your way.
Lenin was a intellectual like Trotsky,did the ordinary serf's who struggled with the life that dependent on nature like drought famines earthquake ,that can effect the crop's and food prices. Am sure the uneducated serfs or the poor farmers really understood what you talking about.
Marxism is good perspective to understand society,but Human society is so complex that we can't understand it only through one perspective ,we will have to read and understand other thinkers also....i think nobody knows the future of human society ,now we are living in the era of technological revolution which is different from industrial revolution and I don't think that we can understand it from Marxist perspective.....
ALAN PAUL yes I can: eat a lot of Lead paint chips, blame everything on external factors, become immune to self reflection, buy yourself a stupid little hat. Congratulations, you've got yourself a solid, Marxist lifestyle.
As a libertarian Socialist and an unorthodox Marxist, however you'd like, as long as you attempt to act ethically, avoiding exploiting others, as best you can in this economy, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, after all, try not to hurt people, and basically attempt to apply the Golden rule.
What about the people, largely, in America who live more freely not dominated by kings/queens or the statist systems? It is/was broken down to smaller groups where people serve each other in communities. The industrial revolution brings these Marxist/socialist concepts to the fore. Even in America when the industrial revolution occurred as well, these concepts emerged more clearly as US turns away from the agrarian to more industrialized, probably inspired, from European influence. Ultimately, in USA, people want to be the authors of their own life story so to speak. Not part of some tribalist movement with constant conflict, that seems to be part of human nature which seems to be rejected or ignored by the Marxist. The points are made and some of it is legitimate. Now it is the same forces; the political elite working with/enabling the big corporations to exploit the masses. They don’t even need the masses labor anymore due to technological innovations. I agree masses unite against the forces trying to control us instead of allowing us to form our own little communities separate from exploitation (in different forms now), in America anyway. Good presentation but I don’t see it as me wanting Marxist to be “in charge” of society. We the People in charge of our society with a common bond to protect our individual freedoms and borders from those who want to dominate the individual. Marxist is still trying to exert force upon me, an individual, to follow their form of rule versus some other statist, monarchy, or whatever other overlord other than God.
Human nature changes, if at all, like geography over thousands of years. Hence study history. He confuses culture, always changing, with human nature (but he's an impressive young fellow, though i disagree almost everything, thoughtful and very British as he should be).
Yeah, great. Everything is material. Thank you, speaker. And then you go on to talk about 'relations' being real. You said it. How can abstract immaterial 'relations' be real on the materialist worldview. Does it make sense to talk about relations the way the speaker does 'on his worldview'"? I did not say does it make sense. I asked if it makes sense on his worldview? Do you want the answer? It is no. Ergo, materialists don't believe the worldview they purport to reveal. Why? Uh Oh. St. Paul was right. In Romans 1 we read his words that those who deny God "suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Theologically, epistemologically, philosophically, anthropologically bankrupt - the Marxist worldview.
The state is merely the catalyzed reflection of the tribe - stop complaining about the life-extending luxuries of capitalism which are impossible under notions of mythic and/or flawed communism, socialism, Marxism.
You don't understand anything. You aren't listening to anybody. You're addressing a strawman. Capitalism is a stage of history. It's in decay as it now only serves the parasite class. Communism is the stage of history where the beyond plentiful fruits of capitalism have been seized from the parasite class & permanently reincorporated back into society. The state is the police-military-media industrial complex keeping the public & working class from the housing, food, technology land, medicine, & resources they themselves proccessed with their labor. Marxism is about adjusting to the omnipresent changes in nature & society & acknowledging the base of social reality is material needs, i.e. food, shelter, medicine). Capitalist ideology insists that the ideal order of the universe is a class of divine/"meritocratic" parasites & their sociopathic spawn are entitled to manage the wealth they do not produce. T H I N K, man.
Because the transition from capitalism to communism necessitates a transitional period of socialism. It is generally the idea of the anarchists to switch directly from a capitalist society to a communist one. Socialism is used because that is the immediate step that we want to take. It also doesn't hurt that there's less stigma attached to the word socialism than communism.
Communism is necessarily socialist, while Socialism is not necessarily communist; socialism is an important aspect of a classless, stateless, moneyless society, but the worker ownership of the means of production, Socialism, is the connerstone of communism, in my opinion, and people need to be socialized in and understand how to operate in a Socialist society before we can start stripping away some of the oppressive concepts in our society, such as money, class and the state; I'm not an Orthodox Marxist, myself, I think we can have a libertarian, quasi-liberal market socialist society as a transition state to communism, instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat, but even that idea of libertarian socialism is socialist, and socialism is the first large step we can take towards communism, a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
He had 7 children with his wife Jenny von Westphalen. He had good relationship with his children and some of his daughters became socialist activists which shows us that he had major influence in their lives which would indicate good relationship with their father.
@@ionezgb And he was a massive liar too, just like you. Adultery with the maid. Illigitimate son? Only three of those seven kids survived to adulthood, and no surprise given their da was a stinky prick who neglected them. But nice try... No, no, I am kidding of course, that was lazy and pathetic. Much like Karl Marx.
Capitalism didn't grow in the "womb" of feudalism. The Renaissance gave birth to the invention of devices and discovery of processes, which in turn change the modes of production.
The point is to study the historic-materialist conditions which allowed that progress to happen. The production line process was 'invented', or rather, organised, in the harbour of Venice. This necessitated an amount of sea trade that required mass production of ships. The invention of the combustion engine was preceded by about 2000 years of use of explosive power. The car motor catalysator has been in use only a few decades. Yes, Newton was important and genius, but he was a man of his time, but if Newton was sponsored and supported. Invention is not a one man's job, for man is a social species.
this guy is comparing a complex society like ours with primitive nomads. That's folly. And archaeology also shows that even in such simple conditions, they also share work. They constantly wanted to improve their brutish conditions.
You obviously aren't understanding what he is saying. A close mainstream analogue may be Jared Diamonds 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' or David Graebers new posthumous book 'The Dawn of Everything', but I would suggest 'Against History, Against Leviathan' by Freddy Pearlman (you can find part of the book on an acceptable audiobook version on You Tube) He's talking about the ORIGIN of sedentary society, aka CIVILIZATION, and how is correlated with SURPLUS and the development of CLASS HIERARCHIES from the THEFT OF SURPLUS. And how due to these class hierarchies there was growing tension and in order to preserve order in support of the upper classes THE STATE was developed. This "primitive nomads" developed sedentary society and the first agricultural and domestic revolutions and eventually, over time, class hierarchies developed. Of course they share work, that's what he's saying, but over time a further division of labor was constructed and certain classes used theft of surplus to grow their own dominance. He's not advocating a pretty picture of pre historic hunter gatherer life like Anarcho primitivists, he's a Marxist for gods sake, they're all about modern culture and technology, they're not luddites.
What about Hegel. He thought that human nature moves historical epochs.human nature never changes. Nothing new under the sun. The great civilisations like Egypt who built the pyramids, yet it nothing now. Same with China , advanced like Egypt, India same, Greece, history written by the conqueror's. They claim many inventions but borrowed from the country they conquered. Islam golden age myth borrowed from the Greeks and others.
I hear you give Karl great credit for "new" ideas about how we think about history. The point of his work was to throw down capitalism and replace it with a system where workers owned their work. All the rest of it is meaningless if it cannot work. Karl was about destroying history and replacing it. It was part of his overall strategy to first destroy capitalism. I strongly prefer to keep history as it is: a recounting of what happened by those that saw it or discovered it, as eye-witnesses and archaeologists do.
@Alex Podolinsky That's a really intellectually dishonest thing to do. 'Class relationships' don't make anything happen; they are a byproduct of hierarchy. Class relationships don't drive anything; people do, people make things happen.
@Alex Podolinsky Specifically on the subject of what history is, if Marx was about re-writing it and destroying the original information, which we see throughout history in all kinds of ideological struggles for power (Muslims, Communists, Taliban, ISIS, etc.), then that is NOT history. That is BS. No fancy words needed.
@Alex Podolinsky Action speaks louder than words. The fact is that to remove the capitalist systems (or aristocracies at the time), Marxists and Communists destroyed books, imprisoned people for their words, etc. Re-education camps were created not to teach, but to indoctrinate. So tell me all day about how Marx said he wasn't about re-writing history, and I will show you all day that those that followed Marx did just that. You see, History is a problem for Marx. There are so many people that rose from poverty to become rich and powerful. If you tell a budding young revolutionary that the rich guy he is supposed to hate started out just like he and his family, but now offers jobs that help the entire community, he may just put down the torch and defend the factory. Marx could not have that. So please. Remember history as it is. Remember the heroes and celebrate the successes. Remember Marx and Engles, who took the profits of their capitalist relations and imagined a communist utopia that cannot exist. Remember BP and the other major English companies that pay the taxes that fund the socialist programs of England. They do exist, as long as the social programs don't bankrupt them. I'm enjoying the fireworks for Independence Day. Goodnight.
@Alex Podolinsky I guess you have to know the real history to know it did happen. I just want to point out that you just stated you were okay with burning books. Think about that a moment please.
@Alex Podolinsky Oh, so is that why Venezuela is the way it is? Why is any communistic country a dictatorship? Can they not read about freer ways to live? Socialism and communism fail at a foundational level because they create hierarchies which contradict the core tenets of their system. Maybe ask the trained marxists of the BLM leadership why they want to erase and rewrite history to fit their narrative?
“Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point is to change it” - seems cynical at best and destructively hypercritical in its worst effect. The whole point of philosophy is to understand what is there. That is what people like Marx do, they endeavor to understand and make plain. Once an axiom sustains itself and is understood, it will meander forward and outward of its own inertia. And yes, you can encourage the process by printing pamphlets. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I also think that we want to credit Marx’s thought to the Leninist, but they are not the same. The essential communist wants to avoid war, while the penultimate socialist wants to build structures that will efficiently produce & distribute products. Other than those small difference, I can agree with the better part of the presentation.
It's ironic that you talk about the transfer of value from the head to the hand, when all concepts of value exist as a subjective concept in the individual human mind. Labor does not create value, only the human mind can perceive value as the human relation to the goods available as understood as means for ends desired.
Ostensible misconstrual of the Labor Theory of Value (LTV). By no metric does it assert ubiquitous value, in juxtaposition to this it posits the production process, what transpires innate to and predominantly how the capitalist accrues profit throughout said procedure of commodification.
Great, I don't perceive food, water, dwelling, medicine or winter coats as having value. The only things I value are sex and weed. Unfortunately most people don't seem to agree with me on this ;)
16:36 Incorrect conjecture. There wasn't any private property back then. Sure. But how do you know the nomads did not pick up and accrue things ? It is fundamental nature to keep things and horde them. Comes from a psychology of being incomplete and need of fulfilment from external material. Even a bird making a nest does that. Same with a dog pissing over place to mark territory. It is evolutionary if not fundamental. And as per me societies should be built to cater to all urges. The communists need to learn this. The capitalists on the other hand , need to learn that this can't go on forever. There are ecological and social constraints. That is why neither socialism not capitalism. We need a balance. Need to build a society on mindfulness and self-awareness.
Your assumption is that 1. The only reason an animal marks it's territory is to denote ownership, rather than to try and avoid a potentially deadly clash with a competing creature 2. That the material conditions of this world only effect humans. The material conditions for many animals includes an element of scarcity either due to a lack of natural resources, or a lack of labour time to source them. This necessitates that an animal must claim what it can. However, the notion that this is property, at least for most creatures is a rather large overstatement of the majority of animal societies. For instance there are very few animals that, assuming they have the strength to, would not take what they desire from another animal with little care of perceived ownership. I suppose to an extent it is not the development of ownership that developed, but the development of the respect of property rights and claims beyond what the individual is immediately using for their own gain. This ties in quite well to Marx's idea of personal and private property, one being the ownership of goods for personal use and survival, the other being the ownership of goods and property for others to use for your benefit.
Gravity is not relational, it's only observed by it's interactions. Correlation is not causation. This basic mistake throws the whole video into doubt.
@Alex Podolinsky I'm not going to sit through a 41-min long video about something i disagree with (but wish to educate myself more about) to understand your reply. What exactly are you referring to?
@@christophereduardo9903 Actually that's not true. Objects with mass have gravity due to the properties of mass; there doesn't need to be a second point or object. It depends on whether you believe things exist independent of being measured.
"This basic mistake throws the whole video into doubt" 😂 well that's a logical fallacy. He also made a bad equation of evolution and Marx's ideas because evolution is not orthogenetic, but it doesn't leave the entire video in doubt.
@@whatabouttheearth 1) It's not a fallacy if it's provably true. 2) You still have confidence in the statements made despite finding another red flag. 3) Look beyond your confirmation bias.
UFOology or Marxism? The only good thing you can say about Marxism is that makes Ufology look like legitimate field of study. The facts are poor old Karl Marx was an unwell person. He was not a just a racist ( see N. Weyl, KarlMarx Racist) but complete failure at everything he touched. Karl’s life course and total moral failure as a person, husband, father, provider, employer, friend and citizen is more that adequately documented. Most of Karl’s life was wasted on his rather “kooky” journalistic ranting’s that make no sense as serous economic or social commentary or analysis. His writings were however a “successful” form of physiological denial regarding his own failure as a person. Karl’s writing operated as a psychological defense mechanism that reduced his anxieties arising from an unacceptable life of ethical and personal failure. His “ journalism” expressed a pattern of ego grandiosity, one buttressing the denial of the horrid life he subjected himself and family to. Sadly Karl Marx’s pattern of ego grandiosity and denial went on unchecked and led not only to his own continuing failure as a person but the destruction of his family, and later through his neurotic writing to hurting countless others. The sad fact is that Karl’s psychotic ego grandiosity and corresponding physiological denial of a failed self is embedded in his “kooky journalism” in a manner that still appeals to weak and physiologically venerable individuals today. Those seeking a rhetorically closed and “unassailable” political position have found in Karl’s nonsense verse a physiological premise for projecting their own problems. The unwell have always found Marx appealing. Healthy, self reflective, naturally self-sustaining people find Karl’s work quite repugnant, (if they pay any attention to it at all). Marxism is more a physiological condition or pathology, our own experience tells us that. We all know too many grandiose “Cultural Leftists” other “politically correct” people who don’t seem to have real or healthy self sustaining lives, (often tax funded union, government, welfare or otherwise dependent l moms basement, types) but who want to “change the world” and everyone else’s lives with their own narcissistic projections. Their sense of ego grandiosity and political activism continues to damage others and their own healthy social development. This sad pattern of ‘Leftist” activists and their “change the world” ego grandiosity can be traced back to the “kooky journalistic” writings of poor old Karl and his failed life. It is a pattern that can be followed through some of the leading screwballs of the last century, Mao, Robert Mugabe, Lenin, Hitler ( yes he was a socialist) , Stalin, Pol Pot, and followed through to the failures of the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Venezuela today. For most of us we must still endure tiresomeness and endless “virtue signaling” “politically correctness” “Cultural Leftist” rhetoric nonsense we are subject to every day by these unwell people. Sad but true. @ Today the term “Capitalism” and “anti- capitalist” is still used to attack the Jewish people ( example the 1%) as well as the basic Human Rights (see UDHR 1948) that has developed out of a Judo-Christian culture and protects everyone from the cultural and human rights abuse that the Cultural Leftists of the world never tire of infliction on others (see art. 7 and 17 UDHR).ua-cam.com/video/rZh01xRO_Qg/v-deo.html @
I see that you never once critiqued the actual analysis. You simply shit talked Marx and leftists overall 😂 conflating the ideas of Marx with every dictator to exist. I'm no Marxist, but anyone with sufficient intelligence can see through your uneducated rant and it's utter logical fallacies. Critique the critique or you're not even in the ring. PS: "Cultural Leftists" is a modern rehash of the NSDAP term "Cultural Bolshevism", whoever injected that into the modern right must of known that and been a Hitler fan boy. The NSDAP chose the term "Cultural Bolshevism" because Marx being German was an annoying fact to them since they were trying to be about everything German.
This fellow is failing to take into consideration two possibilities: Sociological Evolution, that the societies that came later were fundamentally superior to earlier iterations, and further the possibility that altering earlier concepts, such as the nature of a decision making hierarchy, will undermine the later processes, such as the necessary economic processes that would be needed even after a revolution. Psychological Evolution, that biological human evolution took place due to the Neolithic revolution, that through natural selection the element of humanity that could function well in anarchist circumstances has died out or been killed, losing out to the superior and enduring civilisational element.
Slaves: I don't like living in a slave mode of production much; Masters: But you eat the food your masters gave you, checkmate! Serfs: I don't like living in a feudal mode of production much; Aristocrats: But you tile the land the nobles gave you, checkmate! ... should I go on?
this guy tripped over his own tounge. . climate change for sure, but not man made global warming!? please dont move the goal post`s. . . two differnt concepts with or without 5G lollol
Since our university doesn't have a Marxist society, it pleases me to listen to you all people. (From: Ambala, Haryana, India)
Just found a Marxist society! Just reading and discussing the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin is highly intersting and a value for your whole life.
We should all join the Indian national marxist movement called 'Naxalites'. The don't believe the natural order of society too! True thought leaders!
@@adityaumale2092 How to join them? What could I do as German there?
@@adityaumale2092 Naxalites are Maoists. I am a Trotskyist. Naxalbari movement has failed due to its inherent disabilities.
@@navdeepsinghbhangu3962 i think Indian society is capitalism society in which capitalism is in it's early stage but Naxalites think that Indian society is semi feudal,i think they are backward people which are stick in older ideas.... that's why there is no progress of their movement......
Josh, this is a brilliant lecture... all cited materials were lucidly quoted and properly placed into the context.... it is very enlightening indeed to watch this... Greetings from Gaza...
are you still in gaza?
If you’re still in Gaza I hope you’re safe brother
This guy is a great speaker. Very interesting talk.
I really loved learning history as a kid and came up with the same conclusions as Marx did and just really started to realize that I was Marxist the whole time when this was discussed in Political Science class in college
Just to show you how suppressed this ideas are to the general public, that lots of people come into contact with those for the first time within specialist environments were they MUST have to acknowledge they exist.
I came into contact with Marxism for the first time in old Soviet printed books in second half stores and from there the work of Marxist historians like Hobsbawn.
Marx himself I could read until the Internet.
Same here, always analysed history through a dialectical lense without even being aware of it
COMMUNISM is slavery
I don't see many apressaite the true friendship between marx and engle without that the books wouldn't have been. True friendship.
Without Marx anything is nothing. I learned thinking from him the first time. Dialectic and historic materialism is great!
I honestly feel myself turning into the asshole Marxist stereotype of calling things "undialectical" lmao.
@@Bpinator Even the capitalists often use Marx dialectic theory very successfully. People are filled up with shit instead of the wisdom tools of Marx
@@Bpinator This "stereotype" is never false because anything is dialectic.
I haven’t found any better explanation of history that this one.
Long live IMT❗long live Trotskyism ❗long live socialist revolution ‼
Not a marxist but quite good summary. Gave me some food for thought.
Workers of the world unite!! Long live Revolution!!
Nowadays it appears to be "Workers of the world divide into identity groups and fight among yourselves".
@@ian_b Bingo! you're onto something
Not a Marxist but found this lecture interesting and well-delivered.
"the accountant and the poet have the same mother" nice
Every educated and thoughtful person I ever met in my long life admitted the Histmat is worthy of cognitive embracing. It is wisdom
Thought I would give it a chance but as expected - utter bullocks!
Obviously this is amazing. I wish more of these amazing talks were given a visual /video overlay. I hope some comrade with the skills take time to do this.
This is a great history of the underlying history of the world 🌎🌍
Thanks for this! I want to replay it to digest it better, but it reminds me of a talk by Evelyn Reed, author of Woman's Evolution, and a book called Historical Materialism.
You should do closed captions for the hearing impaired. Or at least allow auto-captions.
you can select English subtitles via clicking the settings cog on the video bar that appears when you run pointer over video.then select subtitles/cc then change off to on .and English auto generated .they should appear on video
The option wasn't there when I first watched. It is now, though.
It can be a bit sticky ..the subtitles on youtube..even bizarre with its translations lol Im glad u have it sorted for you now lol
Just see my video on political economy it would cut to the chase
This is a beautiful video, very well done.
Marxs analysis is so logical to me that its baffling how anyone could disagree.
I agree with you but I think that others agreement may be irrelevant. When they, have a nice life and they know or rather fear, the government will beat them with a stick what are they going to do? Drink the champagne and to hell with the proletariat. That, I think, is the real problem us communists face. It's easier to continue as before than to be honest and admit that the capitalist system doesn't work and it needs to be gone
Don’t talk to Christian fundamentalists then. Your head will explode.
so you're a fascist. since it's the synthesis of communism
@@Etatdesiege1979 but once you've recovered from the explosion, remember to patiently explain again ;)
The problem is that the first step in accepting Marxism, or even dialectical materialism, is rejecting all the notions you've been raised and indoctrinated to believe, which often means rejecting your own notions of your identity.
This video really helps me and good explanation
Many people look back on the Golden Age of Greece and its "democracy" with fondness . What they leave out it was built and progressed because slavery gave them the time and luxury to think , explain , calculate on the backs of slaves .
Amazing lecture…thank you!!!!!
That was a great explanation, well delivered, thankyou
interesting and informative!
A suggestion for when you record future speeches, avoid a background with a face on it as the camera will continually switch focus between the real person and the face in the background.
A bit disappointed that the 1848 revolutions was not brought up in the analysis, as you could argue that it was a curtain raiser to the shift in capitalism and its development in relation to its inevitable contradiction involving its antagonism towards labour.
A revolution that both occured to early and yet too late, as to its ramifications.
17:16 "that change came with the domestication of plants and animals" so it started with an idea? So you've proven strict materialism false?
One could say that Fuchiama's approach was 'teleological', explaining history as being determined by ,end-ststes'.
feel Pleasure in listening to you .red salute comrade
There is a bit of contradiction, in India Capitalism imported from West lives side by side to more ancient Feudal relations... Rather the surplus of Capitalism is enjoyed by very few who keep the rest denied to the advances. And yet there is no major revolutionary drive for people to better their lives...!
Imho, the new religion of democracy, or election based democracy is sealing India in its feudal state. There is no drive to change. The rich always get voted into office, which is intended, but the poor now brainwashed, thinking their system is still heaven compare with authoritarian china. Even when truth is right in front of you. Like the chinese comment on india: one can never wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.
India has a ton of different Communist Parties, reach out to one to start the change there!
Indian society is very different from Western society because it has caste system, religion as base of people's thinking and different culture....we can't understand Indian society only through Marxist perspective....
@@kamalpreetsingh1686 Can you explain why you think so?
Heh? Doesn't India has a Communist Party since the 20's? and Kerala is still very strong on Communist ideas, they have a Left Front and all that has elected multiple governments even the current one. If I remember correctly it was one of the local governments that handled the COVID crisis best...
I am a Marxist
Great talk!
Wah wah I’m a victim of history and have no personal agency .
Good done!
Red salute
On a purely aesthetic basis, that background looks more KFC than KHM.
Kentucky Fried Communism
Why do people, especially women always notice, what is absolutely not important?
Karl Marx and Adam Smith return from the Great Beyond to have a discussion sipping coffee at a Starbucks. They reflect that ironically, they had similar views and sentiments on the nature of labor-owner relationships. Smith notes that,for example, that laborers after the Black Death had more bargaining power due to so many of them being killed off by the fatal disease. He says now they were liberated to move up ladders in the free market and gain control over the means of production. Marx says, ah, good point, but all boomerangs eventually come full circle, have you heard? Smith sees his point, they realize, like Lord Buddha, that a Middle Way Solution must emerge. I was sitting at an adjacent table and could not help but eavesdrop on the two distinguished fellas. So, I devised that solution. Click on my icon for the free audiobooks 9with graphics).
What's the moderate centrist stance on racism?
Good stuff
I'm starting to believe consciousness does not exist. If we loose our sense of sight, are we then sight unconscious ? Without our senses we are not conscious.
You're in a good direction 👍.
Consciousness is one of those concepts that has a varnish of barely concealed mysticism and is so very I'll defined, that if you ask two specialists to define it you would get two different answers.
The fact of the matter is that we still have in philosophy and psychology some concepts that are holdovers of religious thinking. Take something like Free Will for example. That is a concept that makes no sense in a universe that scientifically, has proven to be mostly deterministic. You're supposed to have the capacity to choose between different alternative course of action, alter the results of causality by your supposed individual volition. But how could you change your decisions when your mind and wants (your volition) are also the result of chains of causality? The idea that you could change or have acted in a different fashion is a fantasy that your brain create after the fact, by contemplating the results of your actions, and as a fantasy is something you can't change in actuality. In my opinion, this idea persists because it affects the material conditions of individuals, who benefit on its presence, given the fact that is one of the justifications usually given for harsh punitive justice and the basis of a lot of religious rethoric.
I just watched a video from a physicist on this subject and it solidified on my mind the idea that we are only material beings:
ua-cam.com/video/zpU_e3jh_FY/v-deo.html
There now exist people who are suffering from, so called, locked in syndrome. When they are given the means to communicate they show that they retain the ability to communicate, by doing so. You might say that they pass the Turing test. That seems like fair evidence that consciousness is a tenacious phenomena.
the adaptation to the existing world is mode of surviving, without which life can not exist; human nature means adaptation to the existing environment.
this adaptation is dialectical, you can say life form is adapting to the habitat but the habitat is also being adapted to the new life form. we can say this when we see our environment today. human adapting by changing their environment but environment not pasively adapting to our will. it is dialectical or reciprocal relationship
Thanks
Just a reminder that you don't have to be communist to agree with communist ideas and politics. You also don't have to be a conservative to agree with some of their fiscal ideals. You don't have to be a socialist to want gov't aid for the poor. We can simply agree to take the best ideas, work them out, and apply them. When these ideas don't work, we change them. While we're fighting the billionaires are united and happily destroying the world.
communism has a contradiction, so what's the antithesis and synthesis to communism comrade?
he contradicts himself when he argues that there is no agency, no individuals who make history, and then mentions Marx as accepting human agency in shaping the world. Ideas change the world, and ideas are originated in learned individuals, not a bunch of random people.
As well as the domestication of plants and animals must have started after having the idea to do so...
There are a dialectical relations between the revolutionary class and the Revolutionary leadership.one depends on the other.
Largely a good presentation, aside from the gratuitous mention of Trotsky
I'm no Trotsky fan but he did historically play an important role in the Russian revolution.
you know these troskyites have to name drop him every two minutes, they have a personality cult for him
@chris russell I mean that depends on what youre asking. He was born in Ukraine but it was a part of the Russian Empire at that time.
As long as the historical materialist dialectic does not produce a surplus of war nor become the instrument that justifies the acceptance of human aggression you may count me as agreeable. I see Marx’s materialism as fundamentally that of Hegelian idealism, but the former lacked the integrity of accurately reporting his own findings. Marx saw and recorded the fatal flaws of capitalism as an economic criterion. I believe it was that shocking realization that made him hostile to the primary ideal of socialism; i.e. peace. If capitalism was doomed, the nation states were doomed and he just couldn’t handle it. He sought an easier softer way out - approval, appeasement, amalgamation. Marx is a staunch communist without land and he will destroy development of the conservative socialist ideal to prove it. After all the workers earned it. I am right aren’t I? The dictatorship of the proletariat can be easy or hard. You may have it your way.
Is materialism the equivalent of physicalism??
Prince William saying the world is over populated on the birth of his third child is a guillotinable offence
I don't think we should separate ideas from things. An idea gives rise to objects, and those objects(technology) also change the way we live.
Lenin was a intellectual like Trotsky,did the ordinary serf's who struggled with the life that dependent on nature like drought famines earthquake ,that can effect the crop's and food prices. Am sure the uneducated serfs or the poor farmers really understood what you talking about.
Marxism is good perspective to understand society,but Human society is so complex that we can't understand it only through one perspective ,we will have to read and understand other thinkers also....i think nobody knows the future of human society ,now we are living in the era of technological revolution which is different from industrial revolution and I don't think that we can understand it from Marxist perspective.....
Is does not matter about the young or old it depends on the awareness and wisdom of the person. This young man shows excellent awareness and wisdom
Understanding Marxism and Historical materialism requires a little recking of brains.
How many words..human history in 40 minutes. Wow
共产主义就一定会实现！
Time to get past all these and into 21st century approaches
can you explain about leading a marxist life style
ALAN PAUL yes I can: eat a lot of Lead paint chips, blame everything on external factors, become immune to self reflection, buy yourself a stupid little hat.
Congratulations, you've got yourself a solid, Marxist lifestyle.
നിന്നോട് ആരെങ്ങിലും ചോദിച്ചാ കോപ്പേ. വല്ലാതെ തൊള്ള പൊളി വേണ്ട
As a libertarian Socialist and an unorthodox Marxist, however you'd like, as long as you attempt to act ethically, avoiding exploiting others, as best you can in this economy, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, after all, try not to hurt people, and basically attempt to apply the Golden rule.
Marxism/Socialism is really not about Lifestyle. "Lifestylism" is a distraction from Systemic Problems
@@michaelwalsh4340 I think you actually provided the perfect description of a Trump supporter, right down to the stupid little hat 🤣
What about the people, largely, in America who live more freely not dominated by kings/queens or the statist systems? It is/was broken down to smaller groups where people serve each other in communities. The industrial revolution brings these Marxist/socialist concepts to the fore. Even in America when the industrial revolution occurred as well, these concepts emerged more clearly as US turns away from the agrarian to more industrialized, probably inspired, from European influence. Ultimately, in USA, people want to be the authors of their own life story so to speak. Not part of some tribalist movement with constant conflict, that seems to be part of human nature which seems to be rejected or ignored by the Marxist. The points are made and some of it is legitimate. Now it is the same forces; the political elite working with/enabling the big corporations to exploit the masses. They don’t even need the masses labor anymore due to technological innovations. I agree masses unite against the forces trying to control us instead of allowing us to form our own little communities separate from exploitation (in different forms now), in America anyway. Good presentation but I don’t see it as me wanting Marxist to be “in charge” of society. We the People in charge of our society with a common bond to protect our individual freedoms and borders from those who want to dominate the individual. Marxist is still trying to exert force upon me, an individual, to follow their form of rule versus some other statist, monarchy, or whatever other overlord other than God.
This worked out really well in Seattle, didn't it?
Working for someone else is not fundamental human nature.
Some of Marx's ideas are not feasible in practice, so what, let's improve these ideas.
Can someone please link me the thumbnail photo please, would be much appreciated.
Value is subjective.
Human nature changes, if at all, like geography over thousands of years. Hence study history. He confuses culture, always changing, with human nature (but he's an impressive young fellow, though i disagree almost everything, thoughtful and very British as he should be).
this is great but his understanding of postmodernism is juvenile. that part was disappointing
the simple fact is that his predicts based on his theory of history is totally wrong.
like what, mr simple fact?
Yeah, great. Everything is material. Thank you, speaker. And then you go on to talk about 'relations' being real. You said it. How can abstract immaterial 'relations' be real on the materialist worldview. Does it make sense to talk about relations the way the speaker does 'on his worldview'"? I did not say does it make sense. I asked if it makes sense on his worldview? Do you want the answer? It is no. Ergo, materialists don't believe the worldview they purport to reveal. Why?
Uh Oh. St. Paul was right. In Romans 1 we read his words that those who deny God "suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Theologically, epistemologically, philosophically, anthropologically bankrupt - the Marxist worldview.
The state is merely the catalyzed reflection of the tribe - stop complaining about the life-extending luxuries of capitalism which are impossible under notions of mythic and/or flawed communism, socialism, Marxism.
You don't understand anything. You aren't listening to anybody. You're addressing a strawman.
Capitalism is a stage of history. It's in decay as it now only serves the parasite class. Communism is the stage of history where the beyond plentiful fruits of capitalism have been seized from the parasite class & permanently reincorporated back into society.
The state is the police-military-media industrial complex keeping the public & working class from the housing, food, technology land, medicine, & resources they themselves proccessed with their labor.
Marxism is about adjusting to the omnipresent changes in nature & society & acknowledging the base of social reality is material needs, i.e. food, shelter, medicine). Capitalist ideology insists that the ideal order of the universe is a class of divine/"meritocratic" parasites & their sociopathic spawn are entitled to manage the wealth they do not produce.
T H I N K, man.
37:00
Hall Dorothy Davis Angela Smith Anthony
Stalinist view of history* premptively refuted by late marx
Why did you name it socialist appeal? It should have been communist-appeal or anarchist-appeal or anarcho-communist-appeal.
Because the transition from capitalism to communism necessitates a transitional period of socialism. It is generally the idea of the anarchists to switch directly from a capitalist society to a communist one. Socialism is used because that is the immediate step that we want to take.
It also doesn't hurt that there's less stigma attached to the word socialism than communism.
Communism is necessarily socialist, while Socialism is not necessarily communist; socialism is an important aspect of a classless, stateless, moneyless society, but the worker ownership of the means of production, Socialism, is the connerstone of communism, in my opinion, and people need to be socialized in and understand how to operate in a Socialist society before we can start stripping away some of the oppressive concepts in our society, such as money, class and the state; I'm not an Orthodox Marxist, myself, I think we can have a libertarian, quasi-liberal market socialist society as a transition state to communism, instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat, but even that idea of libertarian socialism is socialist, and socialism is the first large step we can take towards communism, a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
If the name is does not satisfy you, then start your own organization labeled as you wish.
Families. Marx didn't have one, he never understood how one should go about caring for and building one.
He had 7 children with his wife Jenny von Westphalen. He had good relationship with his children and some of his daughters became socialist activists which shows us that he had major influence in their lives which would indicate good relationship with their father.
@@ionezgb And he was a massive liar too, just like you. Adultery with the maid. Illigitimate son? Only three of those seven kids survived to adulthood, and no surprise given their da was a stinky prick who neglected them. But nice try...
No, no, I am kidding of course, that was lazy and pathetic.
Much like Karl Marx.
this guy can rail me whenever he want
wtf
@@myristicina. tf, he is hot
Very interesting. It's like an explanation of how to explain something you made up.
Capitalism didn't grow in the "womb" of feudalism. The Renaissance gave birth to the invention of devices and discovery of processes, which in turn change the modes of production.
The point is to study the historic-materialist conditions which allowed that progress to happen. The production line process was 'invented', or rather, organised, in the harbour of Venice. This necessitated an amount of sea trade that required mass production of ships. The invention of the combustion engine was preceded by about 2000 years of use of explosive power. The car motor catalysator has been in use only a few decades. Yes, Newton was important and genius, but he was a man of his time, but if Newton was sponsored and supported. Invention is not a one man's job, for man is a social species.
Was not the Renaissance a re-discovery of art, knowledge and development in terms of human industry and discovery?
this guy is comparing a complex society like ours with primitive nomads. That's folly. And archaeology also shows that even in such simple conditions, they also share work. They constantly wanted to improve their brutish conditions.
Missed the point? Or, rather, got the point yet still wanted to talk shit?
You obviously aren't understanding what he is saying.
A close mainstream analogue may be Jared Diamonds 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' or David Graebers new posthumous book 'The Dawn of Everything', but I would suggest 'Against History, Against Leviathan' by Freddy Pearlman (you can find part of the book on an acceptable audiobook version on You Tube)
He's talking about the ORIGIN of sedentary society, aka CIVILIZATION, and how is correlated with SURPLUS and the development of CLASS HIERARCHIES from the THEFT OF SURPLUS. And how due to these class hierarchies there was growing tension and in order to preserve order in support of the upper classes THE STATE was developed.
This "primitive nomads" developed sedentary society and the first agricultural and domestic revolutions and eventually, over time, class hierarchies developed.
Of course they share work, that's what he's saying, but over time a further division of labor was constructed and certain classes used theft of surplus to grow their own dominance.
He's not advocating a pretty picture of pre historic hunter gatherer life like Anarcho primitivists, he's a Marxist for gods sake, they're all about modern culture and technology, they're not luddites.
In short two wrongs don’t make a right.
What about Hegel. He thought that human nature moves historical epochs.human nature never changes. Nothing new under the sun. The great civilisations like Egypt who built the pyramids, yet it nothing now. Same with China , advanced like Egypt, India same, Greece, history written by the conqueror's. They claim many inventions but borrowed from the country they conquered. Islam golden age myth borrowed from the Greeks and others.
Human Nature is the myth
@@hansmohammed5486 obviously u know it all
1898 . the beginning ov history.
Profe flojo xd
bg is gay lol
I hear you give Karl great credit for "new" ideas about how we think about history. The point of his work was to throw down capitalism and replace it with a system where workers owned their work. All the rest of it is meaningless if it cannot work. Karl was about destroying history and replacing it. It was part of his overall strategy to first destroy capitalism.
I strongly prefer to keep history as it is: a recounting of what happened by those that saw it or discovered it, as eye-witnesses and archaeologists do.
@Alex Podolinsky That's a really intellectually dishonest thing to do. 'Class relationships' don't make anything happen; they are a byproduct of hierarchy. Class relationships don't drive anything; people do, people make things happen.
@Alex Podolinsky Specifically on the subject of what history is, if Marx was about re-writing it and destroying the original information, which we see throughout history in all kinds of ideological struggles for power (Muslims, Communists, Taliban, ISIS, etc.), then that is NOT history. That is BS. No fancy words needed.
@Alex Podolinsky Action speaks louder than words. The fact is that to remove the capitalist systems (or aristocracies at the time), Marxists and Communists destroyed books, imprisoned people for their words, etc. Re-education camps were created not to teach, but to indoctrinate.
So tell me all day about how Marx said he wasn't about re-writing history, and I will show you all day that those that followed Marx did just that.
You see, History is a problem for Marx. There are so many people that rose from poverty to become rich and powerful. If you tell a budding young revolutionary that the rich guy he is supposed to hate started out just like he and his family, but now offers jobs that help the entire community, he may just put down the torch and defend the factory. Marx could not have that.
So please. Remember history as it is. Remember the heroes and celebrate the successes. Remember Marx and Engles, who took the profits of their capitalist relations and imagined a communist utopia that cannot exist. Remember BP and the other major English companies that pay the taxes that fund the socialist programs of England. They do exist, as long as the social programs don't bankrupt them.
I'm enjoying the fireworks for Independence Day. Goodnight.
@Alex Podolinsky I guess you have to know the real history to know it did happen.
I just want to point out that you just stated you were okay with burning books. Think about that a moment please.
@Alex Podolinsky Oh, so is that why Venezuela is the way it is? Why is any communistic country a dictatorship? Can they not read about freer ways to live? Socialism and communism fail at a foundational level because they create hierarchies which contradict the core tenets of their system. Maybe ask the trained marxists of the BLM leadership why they want to erase and rewrite history to fit their narrative?
:V
“Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point is to change it” - seems cynical at best and destructively hypercritical in its worst effect. The whole point of philosophy is to understand what is there. That is what people like Marx do, they endeavor to understand and make plain. Once an axiom sustains itself and is understood, it will meander forward and outward of its own inertia. And yes, you can encourage the process by printing pamphlets. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I also think that we want to credit Marx’s thought to the Leninist, but they are not the same. The essential communist wants to avoid war, while the penultimate socialist wants to build structures that will efficiently produce & distribute products. Other than those small difference, I can agree with the better part of the presentation.
Mark was a failure Engels helped him alot. Mark blamed the system as always.
It's ironic that you talk about the transfer of value from the head to the hand, when all concepts of value exist as a subjective concept in the individual human mind. Labor does not create value, only the human mind can perceive value as the human relation to the goods available as understood as means for ends desired.
Ostensible misconstrual of the Labor Theory of Value (LTV). By no metric does it assert ubiquitous value, in juxtaposition to this it posits the production process, what transpires innate to and predominantly how the capitalist accrues profit throughout said procedure of commodification.
As for subjective value, if this is you’re principle tenet, you’ll need a reassessment if the intention is to concurrently advocate capitalism.
@@fishywishy4671 Marx confused profit with interest.
Great, I don't perceive food, water, dwelling, medicine or winter coats as having value. The only things I value are sex and weed. Unfortunately most people don't seem to agree with me on this ;)
16:36 Incorrect conjecture. There wasn't any private property back then. Sure. But how do you know the nomads did not pick up and accrue things ? It is fundamental nature to keep things and horde them. Comes from a psychology of being incomplete and need of fulfilment from external material. Even a bird making a nest does that. Same with a dog pissing over place to mark territory. It is evolutionary if not fundamental. And as per me societies should be built to cater to all urges. The communists need to learn this. The capitalists on the other hand , need to learn that this can't go on forever. There are ecological and social constraints. That is why neither socialism not capitalism. We need a balance. Need to build a society on mindfulness and self-awareness.
Your assumption is that
1. The only reason an animal marks it's territory is to denote ownership, rather than to try and avoid a potentially deadly clash with a competing creature
2. That the material conditions of this world only effect humans. The material conditions for many animals includes an element of scarcity either due to a lack of natural resources, or a lack of labour time to source them. This necessitates that an animal must claim what it can. However, the notion that this is property, at least for most creatures is a rather large overstatement of the majority of animal societies. For instance there are very few animals that, assuming they have the strength to, would not take what they desire from another animal with little care of perceived ownership. I suppose to an extent it is not the development of ownership that developed, but the development of the respect of property rights and claims beyond what the individual is immediately using for their own gain.
This ties in quite well to Marx's idea of personal and private property, one being the ownership of goods for personal use and survival, the other being the ownership of goods and property for others to use for your benefit.
What you're talking about is personal property, not private property.
Gravity is not relational, it's only observed by it's interactions. Correlation is not causation. This basic mistake throws the whole video into doubt.
@Alex Podolinsky I'm not going to sit through a 41-min long video about something i disagree with (but wish to educate myself more about) to understand your reply. What exactly are you referring to?
without at least two points you can't have time, space nor gravity, they work in the relation of points, things, to each other.
@@christophereduardo9903 Actually that's not true. Objects with mass have gravity due to the properties of mass; there doesn't need to be a second point or object. It depends on whether you believe things exist independent of being measured.
"This basic mistake throws the whole video into doubt" 😂 well that's a logical fallacy.
He also made a bad equation of evolution and Marx's ideas because evolution is not orthogenetic, but it doesn't leave the entire video in doubt.
@@whatabouttheearth 1) It's not a fallacy if it's provably true.
2) You still have confidence in the statements made despite finding another red flag.
3) Look beyond your confirmation bias.
UFOology or Marxism?
The only good thing you can say about Marxism is that makes Ufology look like legitimate field of study.
The facts are poor old Karl Marx was an unwell person. He was not a just a racist ( see N. Weyl, KarlMarx Racist) but complete failure at everything he touched. Karl’s life course and total moral failure as a person, husband, father, provider, employer, friend and citizen is more that adequately documented.
Most of Karl’s life was wasted on his rather “kooky” journalistic ranting’s that make no sense as serous economic or social commentary or analysis.
His writings were however a “successful” form of physiological denial regarding his own failure as a person. Karl’s writing operated as a psychological defense mechanism that reduced his anxieties arising from an unacceptable life of ethical and personal failure.
His “ journalism” expressed a pattern of ego grandiosity, one buttressing the denial of the horrid life he subjected himself and family to.
Sadly Karl Marx’s pattern of ego grandiosity and denial went on unchecked and led not only to his own continuing failure as a person but the destruction of his family, and later through his neurotic writing to hurting countless others.
The sad fact is that Karl’s psychotic ego grandiosity and corresponding physiological denial of a failed self is embedded in his “kooky journalism” in a manner that still appeals to weak and physiologically venerable individuals today.
Those seeking a rhetorically closed and “unassailable” political position have found in Karl’s nonsense verse a physiological premise for projecting their own problems. The unwell have always found Marx appealing.
Healthy, self reflective, naturally self-sustaining people find Karl’s work quite repugnant, (if they pay any attention to it at all).
Marxism is more a physiological condition or pathology, our own experience tells us that. We all know too many grandiose “Cultural Leftists” other “politically correct” people who don’t seem to have real or healthy self sustaining lives, (often tax funded union, government, welfare or otherwise dependent l moms basement, types) but who want to “change the world” and everyone else’s lives with their own narcissistic projections.
Their sense of ego grandiosity and political activism continues to damage others and their own healthy social development.
This sad pattern of ‘Leftist” activists and their “change the world” ego grandiosity can be traced back to the “kooky journalistic” writings of poor old Karl and his failed life. It is a pattern that can be followed through some of the leading screwballs of the last century, Mao, Robert Mugabe, Lenin, Hitler ( yes he was a socialist) , Stalin, Pol Pot, and followed through to the failures of the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Venezuela today.
For most of us we must still endure tiresomeness and endless “virtue signaling” “politically correctness” “Cultural Leftist” rhetoric nonsense we are subject to every day by these unwell people. Sad but true.
@
Today the term “Capitalism” and “anti- capitalist” is still used to attack the Jewish people ( example the 1%) as well as the basic Human Rights (see UDHR 1948) that has developed out of a Judo-Christian culture and protects everyone from the cultural and human rights abuse that the Cultural Leftists of the world never tire of infliction on others (see art. 7 and 17 UDHR).ua-cam.com/video/rZh01xRO_Qg/v-deo.html
@
I see that you never once critiqued the actual analysis. You simply shit talked Marx and leftists overall 😂 conflating the ideas of Marx with every dictator to exist.
I'm no Marxist, but anyone with sufficient intelligence can see through your uneducated rant and it's utter logical fallacies. Critique the critique or you're not even in the ring.
PS: "Cultural Leftists" is a modern rehash of the NSDAP term "Cultural Bolshevism", whoever injected that into the modern right must of known that and been a Hitler fan boy. The NSDAP chose the term "Cultural Bolshevism" because Marx being German was an annoying fact to them since they were trying to be about everything German.
This fellow is failing to take into consideration two possibilities:
Sociological Evolution, that the societies that came later were fundamentally superior to earlier iterations, and further the possibility that altering earlier concepts, such as the nature of a decision making hierarchy, will undermine the later processes, such as the necessary economic processes that would be needed even after a revolution.
Psychological Evolution, that biological human evolution took place due to the Neolithic revolution, that through natural selection the element of humanity that could function well in anarchist circumstances has died out or been killed, losing out to the superior and enduring civilisational element.
Haha Communist.
Jet Stream ice pick crew?
lol
Says the man in the shirt made in Bangladesh
Slaves: I don't like living in a slave mode of production much; Masters: But you eat the food your masters gave you, checkmate!
Serfs: I don't like living in a feudal mode of production much; Aristocrats: But you tile the land the nobles gave you, checkmate!
... should I go on?
@@gabriellesaivate3691 That'll do
He probably drinks coffee too - shocking
this guy tripped over his own tounge. . climate change for sure, but not man made global warming!? please dont move the goal post`s. . . two differnt concepts with or without 5G lollol
Hey look ma, a cult .