Amazing knowledge and I agree regarding to relationship between Hegel and Marxism . 45 years ago I start to read Hegel and that continued up to date . Thank you
The US economy is already in recession. Now rate cut will ignite inflation. The banks will tighten even more, all consumer and corporate credit lending. This is the beginning of a deflationary period for your assets. Stocks markets will decline, and stock values disappear in a blink of the eye. Businesses will begin layoffs in earnest which will soon be reflected in the unemployment rate and unemployment claims, to further solidify the recession. In fact, Now that the FED cut rates in Sept, it will signify that the Titanic is going under, and it will suck everything down. Retail and housing sales will truly decline as consumer hold off their purchases. The inverted yield curve will then turn positive, but remember, certain assets like stocks and Crypto’s acts as a hedge. Long & short-term trading is generally safer, allowing investors to weather market volatility. I have managed to grow a nest egg of around 100k to a decent 732k in the space of a few months... I'm especially grateful to Seren Wintersun, whose deep expertise and traditional trading acumen have been invaluable in this challenging, ever-evolving financial landscape.
Trading without professional guide... Huh I laugh you, because you will remain where you are or even make huge losses that will stop you from trading, this has been one of the biggest problem to new traders.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
The philosophy of history, could be summarised as following: these, antithese and synthesis There are 3 classes: workers, capitalists and the rest which comprises the beneficiaries of the surplus of production
I ask again: comrades why on earth are you still bothering with the failed (and largely incomprehensible) ideas of that Christian Mystic, Hegel? Historical Materialism [HM] doesn't need them, as Marx himself indicated in the Postface to the second edition of 'Capital'. There he added the _only summary of the "dialectic method" he published and endorsed in his entire life,_ and it contained not one atom of Hegel (upside down or even 'the right way up'). Here is just part of it: --------------------------- "After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on: 'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.' "Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" ------------------------------- In the above passage, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found -- no "dialectical contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no "universal change" --, and yet Marx still calls it "the dialectic method" and "my method". So, Marx's "dialectic method" has had Hegel _competely excised,_ and more closely resembles the "dialectic method" of Aristotle, Kant and the so-called Scottish Historical School (of Ferguson, Millar, Robertson, Smith, Hume and Steuart), whose ideas influenced Kant, and hence Marx. High time we emulated Marx and kissed this failed theory (Dialectical Materialism) 'goodbye'. HM is the only scientific theory we need.
@@RosaLichtenstein01 I'm no Hegelian trust me, but that we have to engage with his shortcomings to reject him (as Marx did) is very much in keeping with his philosophy of history.
@@jonathanbailey1597 Well, I have been studying Hegel now for nearly forty years and I have yet to find anything of merit in his work, so my engagement with him is to reject completely that confused mystic, as Marx should have done in the early 1840s. However, as my comment shows, by the time Marx published the second edition of 'Capital', he had abandoned Hegel, root and branch.
Yes, if you ever wondered where Marx learned the ideobabble you see in his writings, where logical linear reasoning dies a tortured death, read the mystical dialectics of Hegel and it will all become clear.
6:12 Actually, human physical beauty of the face has rather universal characteristics, such as symmetry, prominence of jaw and chin, prominence of cheekbones, hollow in the lower cheeks, shortness of the philtrum, et cetera. Basic features are rather objective. More granular features (eg. hair color, skin color, or other minutia of size and proportion ) are more subjective (because they don't matter as much). Judith Langlois is one prominent researcher in the field. I imagine that point of that videogame study might have something to do with the conjecture that game players are more likely to avoid real life social interaction (favoring the fantasy of videogames) due to being less attractive and thus getting less benefit (fewer romantic encounters) than their more attractive peers.
Psychoanalysis from a Marxist perspective is double gibberish because it combines the worst aspects of both. You are trying to prove something you already believe to be true. You can't understand psychology until you understand your own. Hegel was lost in the realm of his own ideas, it's the wrong place to start.
Just so you know, you subjectively attached adjectives with negative connotations without evidence and then came to conclusions based on those subjective adjectives. In other words, "you are trying to prove something you already believe to be true." You just basically ad hominem'd Hegel's ideas. I suggest you try making an argument against Hegel (or Wolff) rather than committing the same mistakes you accuse others of committing.
Richard Wolff: A theoretician and an activist in a single person. Bravo
Amazing knowledge and I agree regarding to relationship between Hegel and Marxism . 45 years ago I start to read Hegel and that continued up to date . Thank you
Thank you for the great video, I love listening to Richard Wolff.
THE TIME HAS COME !!!!
Rick, you are FIRE! 🔥🔥🔥🔥
The US economy is already in recession. Now rate cut will ignite inflation. The banks will tighten even more, all consumer and corporate credit lending. This is the beginning of a deflationary period for your assets. Stocks markets will decline, and stock values disappear in a blink of the eye. Businesses will begin layoffs in earnest which will soon be reflected in the unemployment rate and unemployment claims, to further solidify the recession. In fact, Now that the FED cut rates in Sept, it will signify that the Titanic is going under, and it will suck everything down. Retail and housing sales will truly decline as consumer hold off their purchases. The inverted yield curve will then turn positive, but remember, certain assets like stocks and Crypto’s acts as a hedge. Long & short-term trading is generally safer, allowing investors to weather market volatility. I have managed to grow a nest egg of around 100k to a decent 732k in the space of a few months... I'm especially grateful to Seren Wintersun, whose deep expertise and traditional trading acumen have been invaluable in this challenging, ever-evolving financial landscape.
SHE IS ON TELE GRAM.
@Serenwintersun
Trading without professional guide... Huh I laugh you, because you will remain where you are or even make huge losses that will stop you from trading, this has been one of the biggest problem to new traders.
Productivity is never accidental; it is always the result of careful planning, dedication, and consistency.
I appreciate the professionalism and dedication of the team behind Seren’s trade signal service.
Hegel my favorite philosopher
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Like Marx said, Hegel was doing a headstand. It was a matter of putting him back on his feet.
Thanks!
Thank you
❤
where marx is right re 2 classes (bourgeoise vs proletariat) as there are only 2 FORCES - capital necessities vs proletarian and allies resistance?
The philosophy of history, could be summarised as following: these, antithese and synthesis
There are 3 classes: workers, capitalists and the rest which comprises the beneficiaries of the surplus of production
just a correction at 13minutes he said Britain is part of the brics but its Brazil
Re contemporary application, doesn't this just shed sun on a rainy day.
I ask again: comrades why on earth are you still bothering with the failed (and largely incomprehensible) ideas of that Christian Mystic, Hegel? Historical Materialism [HM] doesn't need them, as Marx himself indicated in the Postface to the second edition of 'Capital'. There he added the _only summary of the "dialectic method" he published and endorsed in his entire life,_ and it contained not one atom of Hegel (upside down or even 'the right way up'). Here is just part of it:
---------------------------
"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:
'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'
"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?"
-------------------------------
In the above passage, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found -- no "dialectical contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no "universal change" --, and yet Marx still calls it "the dialectic method" and "my method".
So, Marx's "dialectic method" has had Hegel _competely excised,_ and more closely resembles the "dialectic method" of Aristotle, Kant and the so-called Scottish Historical School (of Ferguson, Millar, Robertson, Smith, Hume and Steuart), whose ideas influenced Kant, and hence Marx.
High time we emulated Marx and kissed this failed theory (Dialectical Materialism) 'goodbye'. HM is the only scientific theory we need.
You do see the irony of that right?
@@jonathanbailey1597 And what irony is that, then?
@@RosaLichtenstein01 I'm no Hegelian trust me, but that we have to engage with his shortcomings to reject him (as Marx did) is very much in keeping with his philosophy of history.
@@jonathanbailey1597 Well, I have been studying Hegel now for nearly forty years and I have yet to find anything of merit in his work, so my engagement with him is to reject completely that confused mystic, as Marx should have done in the early 1840s. However, as my comment shows, by the time Marx published the second edition of 'Capital', he had abandoned Hegel, root and branch.
@@RosaLichtenstein01 Sure, but some would say it's mildly more problematic. I think Raymond Geuss and Andrew Chitty are worth looking at here.
Professional professors professing
And push aside all these top heavy intellectuals. It's their life story and useless to the Struggle.
Is that why they banned abortion
Yes, if you ever wondered where Marx learned the ideobabble you see in his writings, where logical linear reasoning dies a tortured death, read the mystical dialectics of Hegel and it will all become clear.
6:12 Actually, human physical beauty of the face has rather universal characteristics, such as symmetry, prominence of jaw and chin, prominence of cheekbones, hollow in the lower cheeks, shortness of the philtrum, et cetera. Basic features are rather objective. More granular features (eg. hair color, skin color, or other minutia of size and proportion ) are more subjective (because they don't matter as much). Judith Langlois is one prominent researcher in the field. I imagine that point of that videogame study might have something to do with the conjecture that game players are more likely to avoid real life social interaction (favoring the fantasy of videogames) due to being less attractive and thus getting less benefit (fewer romantic encounters) than their more attractive peers.
Psychoanalysis from a Marxist perspective is double gibberish because it combines the worst aspects of both. You are trying to prove something you already believe to be true. You can't understand psychology until you understand your own. Hegel was lost in the realm of his own ideas, it's the wrong place to start.
What???
Just so you know, you subjectively attached adjectives with negative connotations without evidence and then came to conclusions based on those subjective adjectives. In other words, "you are trying to prove something you already believe to be true." You just basically ad hominem'd Hegel's ideas.
I suggest you try making an argument against Hegel (or Wolff) rather than committing the same mistakes you accuse others of committing.
@@limitisillusion7 100%, but he wont because he cant. All feelings no facts with the reactionaries.
This is all nonsense
Thanks!