Eagleton's point about how our lives are filled with labor as a result of capitalism's inequalities is important. It's something we should think a lot more about.
@@ThisDoctorKnows yes, but, I think the keyword is 'filled' and not 'work'. I recently saw a video on time, light bulbs and clocks. And how they have made us work more, at a higher pace and how it deviate from human work historically. It's interesting that the technology that should enable us to live a fulfilling life have done the opposite in many ways.
We need classical /humanistic education more than ever, because degradation is everywhere and I hope we can stop that degradation! In every aspect... Daria from Vienna/AT...
Fascinating discussion. I agree with both on the neglect of the humanities. In many respects we have moved from Athens (philosophy & culture) to Rome (engineering & public benefits). But I don’t think Marxism is the answer. The reason individuals do have leisure is because of a system of trade. Not through the neglect of it. I suspect part of this is the human propensity toward greed (which is subversive of any political system - market or socialist/communist). Scruton raises a good point to ask what is the alternative (to a market system - which, btw, will always exist. When those on the left sought to eliminate it - via command economies - black markets emerged). The only answer to this is, for society as a whole to recognize this. To be educated. Life is not about power or money. It is so much more. But all systems have their way of devaluing the humanities. A liberal arts education holds value but must be promoted. When universities become competitive for students they have to focus on economic benefits (“graduate here and earn $100k!”). But the alternative runs into other elements (“you must take course X and we, the government, will tell you what is appropriate or inappropriate to teach”). Society must ultimately come to some agreement about the benefits of higher education in the humanities and arts. And promote that at all levels. Without exercising tight control over the details of what is taught within the humanities. Difficult to do in today’s identity politics as Scruton observes .
If Marxism is not the answer, it is still better than Fascism, which is resurgent today particularly in South America, where I am originally from. At least Communism, as in Cuba, tries to raise the masses towards the high culture.
The American author Jonah Goldberg makes a great point in his book, "Liberal Fascism," this is that what is now called liberalism, not classical liberalism to make sure, has fascist roots. Thus the degradation of culture into a least common denominator today matches the goals of WWII Nazism.
But the degradation of culture is down to market forces that are entirely consistent with classical liberalism. The market is the ones reducing cinema down to sequels, remakes, franchises, etc. commodification of art is the enemy of culture
5:28 How interesting that the probably intended _"fighting Stalinism"_ comes out sounding like _"fighting _*_for_*_ Stalinism"_ . I am no subscriber to Freudian "psychology" of the usual suspects such as Edward Bernays, to put it mildly, however if there is such a thing as a Freudian slip, that would be a classic example.
This is a major area of mutual misunderstanding between "left" and "right" in the Western world today. There are plenty of honest, reasonable disagreements about what government ought to be like, but hardly anybody who calls themself a "Marxist" or a "socialist" in the West has any sympathy for Stalinism or for authoritarian regimes. There are no doubt comparable misunderstandings going in the opposite direction, too. What we've got to do is liberate ourselves from these political labels, stop taking pleasure in disliking or hating each other, and engage one another in the way that Eagleton and Scruton manage to do in this video. It's easier said than done, but worth the effort.
Ahhck! What’s next? He doesn’t really respond to the retort re: our dumbed down and overly leisurized society. TV, video games, UA-cam etc, none of these are labor, and yet they consume a majority of our time. In fact it may well be that the harder we work, the more creative energy goes into our art as art becomes all the more important and our only respite from labor itself (instead of stupefied internet consumption or whatever). I doubt this is entirely true, it’s hard to create when exhausted. I think perhaps the conversation needs to shift to the *kind* of art that is being produced now. It is NOT mostly pointless (though it appears to be)-video games, UA-cam, etc.- many of the most popular forms of media are made precisely to be monetized. Art has become, in some respects, the media science of making money.
You may find the answer you are looking for in Guy Debord's Society of Spectacle. With the period starting with Cold War, the first televisions were built and from that point on technological devices with similar affects entered and captured our lives. In the 19th century the workers could use their leisure time however they liked, they would read books and form unions. In our present day, the second we get out of work we immediately start surfing on the internet or watch television from which we get joy. There are signs everywhere telling us how to live (you should watch the film They Live and Zizek's comment on the film). All the things capitalist ideology uses as a means of getting hold of our minds are spectacles, and spectacles are the things that get us into believing that capitalism as a system works while blinding us to the material conditions of our lives.
Is all popular culture "degraded" culture? Consider Star Trek at its best, for instance. Or something like Young Sheldon. There's actually a good deal of popular entertainment around that succeeds in encouraging people to think, to be civil to one another, and to appreciate the merits of other viewpoints --- and that actually succeeds better in this than elite humanities programs in higher education. Moreover, there are plenty of professional classical musicians and composers who could turn somebody like Scruton on to Pink Floyd. Elitism is as much a part of the problems under discussion here as anything.
This was a great debate, and lots of good humoured sparring. Amazing how their perceived roles were reversed: Marxist Eagleton as a real dinosaur, the conservative Scruton absolutely on it.
Capitalists: "i can't believe people don't like demeaning, unrewarding, dead end, undervalued, micromanaged, narrow-focused work! What do you want, to be free and humanised!?"
Eagleton's point about how our lives are filled with labor as a result of capitalism's inequalities is important. It's something we should think a lot more about.
How does capitalism’s inequalities lead to a life filled with labor? It sounds intriguing but it seems under any economic system there would be work.
@@ThisDoctorKnows yes, but, I think the keyword is 'filled' and not 'work'. I recently saw a video on time, light bulbs and clocks. And how they have made us work more, at a higher pace and how it deviate from human work historically. It's interesting that the technology that should enable us to live a fulfilling life have done the opposite in many ways.
What are you talking about? The lives of the working class are far less "full of Labor" because of technology developed by capitalism.
Nice to see you upload again.
We need classical /humanistic education more than ever, because degradation is everywhere and I hope we can stop that degradation! In every aspect... Daria from Vienna/AT...
Fascinating discussion. I agree with both on the neglect of the humanities. In many respects we have moved from Athens (philosophy & culture) to Rome (engineering & public benefits). But I don’t think Marxism is the answer. The reason individuals do have leisure is because of a system of trade. Not through the neglect of it. I suspect part of this is the human propensity toward greed (which is subversive of any political system - market or socialist/communist). Scruton raises a good point to ask what is the alternative (to a market system - which, btw, will always exist. When those on the left sought to eliminate it - via command economies - black markets emerged). The only answer to this is, for society as a whole to recognize this. To be educated. Life is not about power or money. It is so much more. But all systems have their way of devaluing the humanities. A liberal arts education holds value but must be promoted. When universities become competitive for students they have to focus on economic benefits (“graduate here and earn $100k!”). But the alternative runs into other elements (“you must take course X and we, the government, will tell you what is appropriate or inappropriate to teach”). Society must ultimately come to some agreement about the benefits of higher education in the humanities and arts. And promote that at all levels. Without exercising tight control over the details of what is taught within the humanities. Difficult to do in today’s identity politics as Scruton observes .
If Marxism is not the answer, it is still better than Fascism, which is resurgent today particularly in South America, where I am originally from. At least Communism, as in Cuba, tries to raise the masses towards the high culture.
Work/ life balance for all workers
I’m a simple man. I see a new ObjectiveBob video, I click.
You and many others! (Me)
The American author Jonah Goldberg makes a great point in his book, "Liberal Fascism," this is that what is now called liberalism, not classical liberalism to make sure, has fascist roots. Thus the degradation of culture into a least common denominator today matches the goals of WWII Nazism.
But the degradation of culture is down to market forces that are entirely consistent with classical liberalism. The market is the ones reducing cinema down to sequels, remakes, franchises, etc. commodification of art is the enemy of culture
5:28 How interesting that the probably intended _"fighting Stalinism"_ comes out sounding like _"fighting _*_for_*_ Stalinism"_ . I am no subscriber to Freudian "psychology" of the usual suspects such as Edward Bernays, to put it mildly, however if there is such a thing as a Freudian slip, that would be a classic example.
This is a major area of mutual misunderstanding between "left" and "right" in the Western world today. There are plenty of honest, reasonable disagreements about what government ought to be like, but hardly anybody who calls themself a "Marxist" or a "socialist" in the West has any sympathy for Stalinism or for authoritarian regimes. There are no doubt comparable misunderstandings going in the opposite direction, too. What we've got to do is liberate ourselves from these political labels, stop taking pleasure in disliking or hating each other, and engage one another in the way that Eagleton and Scruton manage to do in this video. It's easier said than done, but worth the effort.
Ahhck! What’s next? He doesn’t really respond to the retort re: our dumbed down and overly leisurized society. TV, video games, UA-cam etc, none of these are labor, and yet they consume a majority of our time. In fact it may well be that the harder we work, the more creative energy goes into our art as art becomes all the more important and our only respite from labor itself (instead of stupefied internet consumption or whatever). I doubt this is entirely true, it’s hard to create when exhausted. I think perhaps the conversation needs to shift to the *kind* of art that is being produced now. It is NOT mostly pointless (though it appears to be)-video games, UA-cam, etc.- many of the most popular forms of media are made precisely to be monetized. Art has become, in some respects, the media science of making money.
You may find the answer you are looking for in Guy Debord's Society of Spectacle. With the period starting with Cold War, the first televisions were built and from that point on technological devices with similar affects entered and captured our lives. In the 19th century the workers could use their leisure time however they liked, they would read books and form unions. In our present day, the second we get out of work we immediately start surfing on the internet or watch television from which we get joy. There are signs everywhere telling us how to live (you should watch the film They Live and Zizek's comment on the film). All the things capitalist ideology uses as a means of getting hold of our minds are spectacles, and spectacles are the things that get us into believing that capitalism as a system works while blinding us to the material conditions of our lives.
Very timely subject matter considering actions of Twitter and UA-cam etc in the last day or two especially. I'm guessing that's your purpose.
Is all popular culture "degraded" culture? Consider Star Trek at its best, for instance. Or something like Young Sheldon. There's actually a good deal of popular entertainment around that succeeds in encouraging people to think, to be civil to one another, and to appreciate the merits of other viewpoints --- and that actually succeeds better in this than elite humanities programs in higher education. Moreover, there are plenty of professional classical musicians and composers who could turn somebody like Scruton on to Pink Floyd. Elitism is as much a part of the problems under discussion here as anything.
This was a great debate, and lots of good humoured sparring.
Amazing how their perceived roles were reversed:
Marxist Eagleton as a real dinosaur, the conservative Scruton absolutely on it.
You're so edgy.
"I'm a marxist because I don't like work". Imagine my shock.
@@Barklord What is unearned income?
Capitalists: "i can't believe people don't like demeaning, unrewarding, dead end, undervalued, micromanaged, narrow-focused work! What do you want, to be free and humanised!?"
@@br2485Exactly.
Too bad Eagleton isn't a Stalinist.
if he were one, he wouldn’t be marxist lol
Long live Thatcher