@@Barklordyes either his counter history of liberalism or perhaps his criticism of western marxists. Afterwards might also want to check his book on democracy and bonapartism or the one about the language of Empire etc...
Jiang Shigong. Be warned: the first result for their stuff on Google turned up a translation with a very ignorant and overly lengthy anti-China introduction. Still worth it to access a translation of such excellent work.
It would be necessary to view these through the lens of Civilization, sociocosmic, technocosmic and geocosmic octaves and enneagrams to have a deeper insight and understanding of this reality.
Great presentation, really looking forward to the release of western Marxism and hopefully also as an audiobook for those of us who struggle with dyslexia! On a very unserious note: Maybe It’s just cause I rewatched the show recently but doesn’t Anita (sorry didn’t catch the last name) look a lot like Meadow Soprano?
Fascism requires treartng race, sex, etc as a class It also requires treating liberal revolutions like the American revolution as fundamentally about things like the right to own slaves and "settlerism," which Marx never did
thank you for this. one thing in which i really wish academics would follow losurdo's example is the language used to explain and elaborate concepts. some of it is so elitist that the contrast between content and presentation becomes a but ludicrous (here's looking at you, ponce de leon...)
"the tangeled paradox of liberalism" "how is it that freedom and domination coexist side by side?" In a free society, therefore, there is a good deal of domination and subjection, relationships of political and economic domination. A seeming contradiction - and certainly a theoretical stumbling block. There are two false ways of resolving this apparent contradiction. The two false resolutions of the seeming contradiction: (a) - The majority refers to various freedoms and deny that democracy and free enterprise can really be considered a system of rule. Because people are not subject to the personal whims of the rulers, it is not really rule, rather order. That's a cheap trick: Not a determination of these freedoms themselves, rather a comparison with circumstances in other times and places. - A theoretical sin: These people praise freedom and democratic rule not so much for what it is, but for what it is not. Their sheer existence is enough to earn them praise, regardless of what these freedoms actually consist of and entail. (b) - Just as wrong for those on the radical left-wing to point to political and economic domination and deny the existence of freedom: “wage slavery”, “phony freedom”. - This is also a way of judging freedom not by what it is, but by what it is *not*, namely, an ideal of freedom. My claim: political and economic domination and freedom are not opposites, they go hand in hand. Freedom represents the way a capitalist democracy uses and instrumentalizes the will and the material interests of the citizens it subjects to its rule.
@@jesusfigueroa7420 You may want to look up, Annie LaCroix-Riz and read up or listen to what she has established through serious study of actual archives about the Spanish Civil War. The "Stalinist bad, Trotskyist and Anarchist good" view of the Spanish Civil War is a bit of a tall tale.
@@stavroskarageorgis4804the whole moral framework is wrong in that it ignores the content of the dispute and instead focuses on who is "authentic", who is really moral.
I was influenced by Losurdo, but I also have critique. At first, I wanted to push back against his overly broad portrayal of liberalism. Some of the figures he uses as examples are not only what most Americans would call 'conservatives' but extremely far right as that. He even treats the proto-fascist undercurrents of Hamiltonian Federalism as 'liberalism'. I eventually came around to the point he seemed to be making. His take on liberalism isn't merely an ideology but a paradigm. In his interpretation, conservatism apparently is a form of liberalism. Under liberal dominance, everything takes on shades of liberalism or else reactionary illiberalism. This is an aspect I think he didn't fully appreciate, as it applies to leftists as well. Consider Lenin who, as mentioned here, was condemning of Western leftists' bourgeois tendencies. Yet Lenin's vanguardism that paved the way for Stalinist state capitalism was itself bourgeois, as it mistrusted the working class to govern themselves. In reacting to strains of bourgeois liberalism, too many leftists falsely assume that their only option is to be illiberal and that this inevitable inegalitarianism is justified as realistic strategy. This gets to the point of how so many leftist intellectuals and elites ignore, refuse to learn about, or actively suppress the history of radical liberalism, liberal socialism, and other forms of liberal-minded leftism.. This has a deep history in both classical liberalism and classical radicalism with roots going back to the English Civil War, as seen in Real or Radical Enlightenment, Radical Whigs, Anti-Federalists, Locofocos, etc; and in figures like Baruch Spinoza, Roger Williams, Thomas Paine, etc.. So, I'd agree with Losurdo that reactionary illiberal 'conservatives', in reacting to liberalism, are defined by what they react to. To that extent, they too are liberals in co-opting and internalizing, albeit in distorted form, what they react to. But equally the same applies to reactionary illiberal 'leftists'. This reactionary tendency has been the dark underbelly of the liberal paradigm that we've struggled to escape.
If Lenin had quickly gotten rid of bosses and owners and instituted employee ownership wouldn't that have been enough to counter the big government that took over? I'm just a plebe but I have often wondered.
The gerald Horne recommendation by Losurdo is an unfortunate one. Horne is borderline crack pot and basically the only source used by the 1619 Project…a kind of historiography that is well in line with dead-end Afro pessimism. I would recommend, Christopher Lasch, Richard Hofstadter, Gordon s wood, Adolph Reed jr, and James Vaughn
@@BobsRevenge Seems the connection between Losurdo and Horne is merely a feedback loop, but that is interesting (I'm new to Losurdo) Thank you for making your point that Horne is not a crack-pot (I only said borderline though 😉). But i will say, Horne's analysis of the primary source material and the narrative he constructs about the American Revolution and Constitution (as a counter revolution) -- just like Beard in his own economistic way -- is reductive. Even though you claim he lets them speak for themselves, I'm not so sure about that, and he clearly has thrown his support behind 1619, which is an attempt to ontologize the American experience as racist and essentially conservative, and though there are in fact elements of that, I just dont think that shows the bigger picture. Not sure what your getting at w/ reference to Hofstadter (is he a "delegitimizer"?) If so, I can see that.
Great job everyone, I am inspired to stop procrastinating and read some Losurdo! Thank you all for your effort!
So wish this scolarship had been widely available instead of the anti-comunist garbage I had to listen to before the interwebs. Call.
Very very thank you!
Losurdo is a must read for any Marxist
I'm reading Benjamin Studebaker's latest book now, but what would you recommend of Losurdo's work first? I'm inclined toward his book on Liberalism.
@@Barklordyes either his counter history of liberalism or perhaps his criticism of western marxists. Afterwards might also want to check his book on democracy and bonapartism or the one about the language of Empire etc...
@@Barklord Isn't Benjamin Studebaker a disciple of the court jester of capitalism (Zizek)?
fantastic convo, thank you all!!
Great discussion. I have just purchased two of the books mentions. They sound really important.
Yes! Strong work strong work.
good discussion
Awesome 👏
Don't appreciate the way the host skipped over Jennifer. Otherwise, good convo.
That put me off too.
She tells you once, she tells you twice? she doesn't need to tell you again. She reminds me of my sons best grrl friend!
when? when her microphone was muted and she said to move on to the next person?
Roderic Day recommended a writer from China at the 1:24:10 mark . Does anyone have the spelling of this persons name. Thank you
Jiang Shigong. Be warned: the first result for their stuff on Google turned up a translation with a very ignorant and overly lengthy anti-China introduction. Still worth it to access a translation of such excellent work.
Thank you for your help.
I had same question thank you
It would be necessary to view these through the lens of Civilization, sociocosmic, technocosmic and geocosmic octaves and enneagrams to have a deeper insight and understanding of this reality.
Huck in his Lenin bag. Good for you sir. Looks good.
Why is Jennifer not invoked (more)?
Great presentation, really looking forward to the release of western Marxism and hopefully also as an audiobook for those of us who struggle with dyslexia!
On a very unserious note:
Maybe It’s just cause I rewatched the show recently but doesn’t Anita (sorry didn’t catch the last name) look a lot like Meadow Soprano?
Fascism requires treartng race, sex, etc as a class
It also requires treating liberal revolutions like the American revolution as fundamentally about things like the right to own slaves and "settlerism," which Marx never did
thank you for this. one thing in which i really wish academics would follow losurdo's example is the language used to explain and elaborate concepts. some of it is so elitist that the contrast between content and presentation becomes a but ludicrous (here's looking at you, ponce de leon...)
It would help immensely if every sentence were not pronounced as a question by the presenter.
LOSURDO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"the tangeled paradox of liberalism" "how is it that freedom and domination coexist side by side?"
In a free society, therefore, there is a good deal of domination and subjection, relationships of political and economic domination. A seeming contradiction - and certainly a theoretical stumbling block. There are two false ways of resolving this apparent contradiction.
The two false resolutions of the seeming contradiction:
(a)
- The majority refers to various freedoms and deny that democracy and free enterprise can really be considered a system of rule. Because people are not subject to the personal whims of the rulers, it is not really rule, rather order. That's a cheap trick: Not a determination of these freedoms themselves, rather a comparison with circumstances in other times and places.
- A theoretical sin: These people praise freedom and democratic rule not so much for what it is, but for what it is not. Their sheer existence is enough to earn them praise, regardless of what these freedoms actually consist of and entail.
(b)
- Just as wrong for those on the radical left-wing to point to political and economic domination and deny the existence of freedom: “wage slavery”, “phony freedom”.
- This is also a way of judging freedom not by what it is, but by what it is *not*, namely, an ideal of freedom.
My claim: political and economic domination and freedom are not opposites, they go hand in hand. Freedom represents the way a capitalist democracy uses and instrumentalizes the will and the material interests of the citizens it subjects to its rule.
The violent attacks on Trotsky and his family do not form part of a Hegelian dialectic.
By whom?
But that's how Stalinist work like in the violence in the Spanish civil war.
@@jesusfigueroa7420 You may want to look up, Annie LaCroix-Riz and read up or listen to what she has established through serious study of actual archives about the Spanish Civil War. The "Stalinist bad, Trotskyist and Anarchist good" view of the Spanish Civil War is a bit of a tall tale.
Thankyou 🙏
@@stavroskarageorgis4804the whole moral framework is wrong in that it ignores the content of the dispute and instead focuses on who is "authentic", who is really moral.
I was influenced by Losurdo, but I also have critique. At first, I wanted to push back against his overly broad portrayal of liberalism. Some of the figures he uses as examples are not only what most Americans would call 'conservatives' but extremely far right as that. He even treats the proto-fascist undercurrents of Hamiltonian Federalism as 'liberalism'.
I eventually came around to the point he seemed to be making. His take on liberalism isn't merely an ideology but a paradigm. In his interpretation, conservatism apparently is a form of liberalism. Under liberal dominance, everything takes on shades of liberalism or else reactionary illiberalism. This is an aspect I think he didn't fully appreciate, as it applies to leftists as well.
Consider Lenin who, as mentioned here, was condemning of Western leftists' bourgeois tendencies. Yet Lenin's vanguardism that paved the way for Stalinist state capitalism was itself bourgeois, as it mistrusted the working class to govern themselves. In reacting to strains of bourgeois liberalism, too many leftists falsely assume that their only option is to be illiberal and that this inevitable inegalitarianism is justified as realistic strategy.
This gets to the point of how so many leftist intellectuals and elites ignore, refuse to learn about, or actively suppress the history of radical liberalism, liberal socialism, and other forms of liberal-minded leftism.. This has a deep history in both classical liberalism and classical radicalism with roots going back to the English Civil War, as seen in Real or Radical Enlightenment, Radical Whigs, Anti-Federalists, Locofocos, etc; and in figures like Baruch Spinoza, Roger Williams, Thomas Paine, etc..
So, I'd agree with Losurdo that reactionary illiberal 'conservatives', in reacting to liberalism, are defined by what they react to. To that extent, they too are liberals in co-opting and internalizing, albeit in distorted form, what they react to. But equally the same applies to reactionary illiberal 'leftists'. This reactionary tendency has been the dark underbelly of the liberal paradigm that we've struggled to escape.
If Lenin had quickly gotten rid of bosses and owners and instituted employee ownership wouldn't that have been enough to counter the big government that took over? I'm just a plebe but I have often wondered.
You believe you have a much greater understanding of the categories you employ than you actually do.
@@ml-squared We all comrades must carefully consider your argument.
People like this Rockhill guy are why I stopped considering myself a Marxist
@chrisdoss3428 Sad. You just should have been more patient with them.
Marxism inhaled feeling itself liberated
People who don't understand "Rockhill guy" are normally very strong in TikTok
The gerald Horne recommendation by Losurdo is an unfortunate one. Horne is borderline crack pot and basically the only source used by the 1619 Project…a kind of historiography that is well in line with dead-end Afro pessimism. I would recommend, Christopher Lasch, Richard Hofstadter, Gordon s wood, Adolph Reed jr, and James Vaughn
@@BobsRevenge Seems the connection between Losurdo and Horne is merely a feedback loop, but that is interesting (I'm new to Losurdo)
Thank you for making your point that Horne is not a crack-pot (I only said borderline though 😉). But i will say, Horne's analysis of the primary source material and the narrative he constructs about the American Revolution and Constitution (as a counter revolution) -- just like Beard in his own economistic way -- is reductive. Even though you claim he lets them speak for themselves, I'm not so sure about that, and he clearly has thrown his support behind 1619, which is an attempt to ontologize the American experience as racist and essentially conservative, and though there are in fact elements of that, I just dont think that shows the bigger picture.
Not sure what your getting at w/ reference to Hofstadter (is he a "delegitimizer"?) If so, I can see that.
@@austintierney4828 your analysis is crack pot. Gerald Horne operates dialectically and forms the connections that so many liberal historians won’t.
@@ComradeRedRoo You just said 'I like Horne.'
That's nice. but you provided zero content, zero evidence.
This is just abusive speech ... adds no value
@austintierney4828 refers merely abusive speech
UA-cam has a great feature. It's called. Do not recommend channel. I'll be pressing that button now
I pressed the Subscribe and all notifications ones.
I love this channel