Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- Today we begin talking about the work of Mark Fisher and his concept of Capitalist Realism. We talk about the origins of Neoliberalism, some of it's main economic goals, some critiques of Neoliberalism, and start to consider some of the trade offs when building our societies around the individual. Hope you enjoy it! :)
Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Social:
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
X: / iamstephenwest
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
You're an absolute KING for covering this! This is the episode that convinced me to finally join your Patreon :)
Hey, thanks! Next episode will be a necessary companion to this one.
Fantastic commentary ! Thank you for mentioning mental illness, 2008 crash, and productivity at work as consequences of neoliberalism
Just helping the algorithm
Can't wait to dive in!
Não sei ou entendi o que você quiz ou quer dizer com: ajudando o algoritmo! Mas aproveito pra lançar uma pergunta que me ocorre já antes dos últimos 20/30 anos: o capitalismo e o sistema economico-politico-psicologico-moral-etc. em que a matéria prima de sua produção é consumo somos nós mesmos num processo circular, tipo armadilha inescapavel, de que o algoritmo é a mediação fatal, sem escapatória?
Essa sensação me veio de consumidor compulsivo de cinema e telenovelas quando me dei conta de que ambos me surprendiam sempre por encenaram justamente minhas mais recentes expectativas!
Ah!, e o que penso, sinto, sofro que estão me roubando... sem me pagar...
I just completed a tutoring gig yesterday for a company that contracts with school districts. I felt the entire thing was fairly useless for the students, and I was shocked at the callousness of the company's management: their only concern was keeping the security of the materials intact and recording the proper matrices to satisfy the district to keep the contract. The kids were seen solely as objects of profit. When I expressed my concerns, I was first ignored, then finally ruthlessly silenced. I took it all as fairly evil--I felt more like a camp guard than educator--but I realize now that the management was simply following the inexorable logic of orofit.
Orofit over Profit!!
The whole idea of factory education is a factory education, isn't it? A system is best understood by what it produces (rather than its claims).
Holy shit I had the same experience with my gig. It's a sad realization and you feel so helpless alongside the kids who are turned into profit motives
What is the company name? I’d like to avoid it
Yep school systems are now day care for workers!!! Think about it after the Rona when schools were closed. Some people were flustered and then complained how day care was expensive. It’s like hmm inflation resulting from a private central bank and the government printing tons of money was textbook inflation haha. But ya kids at school is how the government helps workers be more productive and probably helps indoctrinate and perpetuate the system.
Like in Utah they have black history month and teach black slavery. No one says a word or questions it. It’s like there were 50 black slaves but tens of thousands of Native American slaves owned by other native Americans and the Spanish and later settlers. Like native Americans were slavers and sold slaves but it’s never taught.
Thank you for covering this!
Looking forward to the next video!
"Expanding capital not for a better service or product but purely for capital".
Mate, thats destilled Mark Fisher down to something so poignant - honestly its a beautiful quote (nb: quote obvs not verbatim).
I remeber watching some old food documentary about pastry shops in on France and how they'd operate one pastry shop for decades - the head pastry chef/baker would take on new apprentices every so often. The product was obviously tasty as hell, but the sheer craft and passion from the workers was a sight to behold. It just reminded me of the mercantilism and how the shop didnt pursue capital for just capital's sake, it pursued a product that was very very good and very very desirable. This is quite rare nowadays in western economies.
The point about how neoliberalism just constantly burdens the individual and blames them and then isolates them is so salient. Imagine: isolated, feeling on your own, everyone around you is busy working, you're reduced to a commodity; constantly judged (or at least paranoid about) on your added-value, this 24-7 switched on constant pressure and expectation on you, with community, civil society, family, friends all being noncontactable and or redundant due to thr focus on 'individualism'.
@@brian5001 "Expanding capital not for a better service or product but purely for capital" = capitalism (it's in the name!) Capitalism is production for profit, not for human need.
Marx said in Capital
"... As the conscious representative of this movement, the possessor of money becomes a capitalist. His person, or rather his pocket, is the point from which the money starts and to which it returns. The expansion of value, which is the objective basis or main-spring of the circulation M-C-M, becomes his subjective aim, and it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist, that is, as capital personified and endowed with consciousness and a will. ..." (Capital Vol. One, Part II: The Transformation of Money into Capital, Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital, Karl Marx 1867)
----
The necessity for socialism arises out of the inevitable escalating breakdowns of capitalism. Two world wars last century weren't enough, now we face World War Three and the use of nuclear weapons. Why? Because the interests of the US capitalist class (whose existence liberal ontology denies is even possible) seeks to maintain its hegemony over the world economy through a fight in the one domain in which it still holds superiority: military force. The other responses to capitalist breakdown are austerity (make the workers pay) and dictatorship (crush the threat of revolution.)
Let those liberal defenders of capitalism who say world war has nothing to do with the struggle for markets and resources, with the basic economic organisation of society, make their case. We don't have much time though, nuclear war is looming.
-----
What does Fisher's concept of "capitalist realism" add that wasn't already expressed 179 years ago in the following:
"Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'"
(The German Ideology, Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook B. The Illusion of the Epoch, Karl Marx 1845")
---
at 1:28 the video says "capitalism may not be great but at least it isn't the Marxism of the 20th century". What Marxism is he talking about? The great lie of Stalinism and its reactionary utopian theory of socialism-in-one-country is that they were Marxists. The great lie has been repeated by Stalinists, Maoists, pseudo-left, conservatives, liberals, imperialists. Even sensible people have been so saturated with it they take it for granted as true.
Lenin had insisted the fate of the Soviet Union depend on its extension to a country with a higher productivity of labor. He, like Marx, was a materialist who said the organisation of society was based on the output of labor. This was so uncontroversial that even after Lenin died in January 1924, Stalin wrote in his "The Foundations of Leninism "... The chief task, the organization of socialist production, still lies ahead. Can this task be performed, can the final victory of socialism be gained, in one country alone, and without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several of the most advanced countries? No, this is out of the question. ..." (April 1924)
By the end of the same year he revised the text in the next edition to read as follows: “Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society.”
"No, this is out of the question" VERUS "can and must". The difference is clear to anyone willing to look.
^ We should also note that Marx and Engels in 1848 concluded the Manifesto of the Communist Party with the words "WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!" (The Stalinist revision of this would be "Working men of each country, unite with each other and then look across your borders." Given all their other falsifications of history it is probably because it was so well known that they didn't bother changing it.)
@@brian5001 What does “honesty” have to do with it? It’s not a question of virtue but self interest. For the working class to defend its interests it is compelled to overthrow capitalism.
For the capitalist classes, rooted in the nation state, to defend their interests they must go to war, including nuclear war. Struggle will decide.
How is pointing nuclear weapons at each other is correctable withing the current political system?
Thank you for your time, effort, and hard work in presenting different, relevant, and significant perspectives on your show. I am gaining and learning new worldviews from your episodes.
Hey algorithm! Bump this!
Great episode. Resonates so much with the situation in the UK under the Thatcher government. Destroy collectivism of the trade unions and communities, no such thing as society, primacy to individual aspiration to wealth at all costs. Not conspiracy but open policy.
Dunbar number. We aren't constructed to be happy imagining ourselves as members of all 8BB person society. We are built to live among a local group of about 100 people whose names we know and lives we are intertwined with. We need larger structures but we mostly need family and local communities.
And traditional belief systems that are respected by the broader society.
Really enjoyed your appearance at Alex O' Connor's show. I've been listening to your podcast a long time before I started following him and It was the very first time I could see you and not only hear you :)
what a special time to be alive. rip mr fisher 🙏
Thank you Steven! Ive been waiting for an episode on Mark Fisher since you started talking about Byong Chul Han and Zizek, huge appreciation
I like the video alot, but I strongly disagree with one point. Neoliberalism didn't win against comunism because it won over the hearts of the people. It does the same thing that still keeps ppl from thinking out of the box called capitalism: it floods the pockets of the losers of capitalism with instant gratitication and the winners have no insentive to question the system that makes them the winner. The streets of eastern Germany in 1990-2000 were filled with alcoholics that lost their job and with it their participation in society. Did it matter that society failed on them? No, it's the individuals responsibility and they themselves are to tranqeulised and ashamed to stand up for themselves.
What does this even mean?
@@DianaStevens42 what exactly was not understandable? I am not a native English speaker. My point is "capitalism and neo liberalism never convinced people that it is a good system. It just gives tons of egoistic and nihilistic rewards. The winners love it because they profit and the losers get silenced and disarmed with drugs."
Well a counter point to that is that a lot of people left soviet to go to the US in search of luxury products. Like there was a common thing for people to think everyone in US has a car so their system must be better. But once they arrived in US they lost all the benefits they took for granted like health care, housing and secure employment. Neoliberalism basically won because of better marketing.
@@ns1extreme I mean considering the amount of people we are talking about here, where even one individual has multiple reasons, the reasons for millions of people are even more diverse. I don't disagree with you however the way you describe it, isn't it the same thing as what I am talking about? The lower classes getting baited but in the end being trapped in the lower classes is the same as the communist state collapsing and people getting trapped in the lower classes. What leads to the trap does not really matter, does it? It's the trap that keeps them in the system.
Could we say that Brave New World--here--was more attractive than 1984--there--but the end result of concentrated power is roughly the same, with the vast majority towing the line and kept docile with bread and circuses?
So happy to see (hear) another episode! Cheers!
Thanks for this amazing video-your quality of commentary and asides always amaze me! I have much respect for your ability to help disburse such philosophical and political views to such a large audience. Keep up the amazing work! ❤
In that government can be in the way of markets - without some regulation protecting resources and environment - we would have thoroughly damaged or eliminated the ideas of conservation, wildlife management, pollution, and so on. These things require regulation because humans consume until a resource lands on "0" and is no longer available, in spite of the consequences.
The destruction of environment and biosphere has occurred time and again, and will continue where there are no regulatory laws and enforcement of said laws.
We are a long way from a truly egalitarian social order, but like to claim all is fair if not equal, because hey, individual, we don't want to hear about your issues - they're your issues not mine, so pull yourself up by the bootstraps and do what you need to do!
We live far from any type of utopian social order, why would we expect neo liberalism will bring us closer? It won't. Our social order is hardly united and agreeable, and can it ever be? Seems quite unlikely this day and age.
Neoliberalism and Socialism do coexist. There is Neoliberalism for the many and Socialism for the few.
Been awhile since I tune into the podcast and wow... Why did I ever stop? What an incredible episode.
this is such a steven west moment!
No way! Just found you from Alex and you’re doing mark fisher let’s goooo
Thr point about not being able to easily distinguish the truth from propaganda is extremely poignant these days.
Fire podcast 🔥🔥
I agree with the podcast in that the neo libertarian, Milton Friedman, we don’t need no government rhetoric is cringe and ultimately offensive. This libertarian turn really explains why Mitt Romney conservatism failed in America and why Trumpism was an inevitable development on the American Right. Their electorate was being ignored while Americas corporations internationalized and embraced radical individualism, making society outright hostile to their voting base.
Line go up or economic growth for the sake of economic growth can never be the governing ideology of a people. They will betray themselves for money.
underrated comment right here. 👏
Amazing episode, all of these recent ones are really helping me out both on an intellectual and personal level :))
Great. I loved it. Waiting for the follow up. Grazie.
I was revisiting the Weil series because i neeeeeedeed more of this show! :) pretty exited to hear this one
An episode on Nick Land would be really cool too! He was the leader of a collective of thinkers of Warwick University together with Mark Fisher called the CCRU where they fused cyberpunk and gothic aesthetic with cybernetics and neo-marxist, dark deleuze-guattarian and nihilist philosophies to found accelerationism. It's a really interesting cultural phenomenon protagonised by early Nick Land (I don't want to talk about his later/current period 😭).
This is pertinent for these daze!
Well done. I subscribed. Thank you for the good content and good reasoning.
Capitalist Realism is a must read.
Very good video, eye opening for me
Thanks Stephen. I resonate with everything you're saying
Dude. I love you. 🙏
Steven is a national treasure.
Excellent episode
Grateful.
Strangely enough Soviet planned economy system was criticized fir what here is called "audit culture" - substitution of real progress by good looking reports to Gosplan.
Very enjoyable
If you do not govern the market and you will get slavery.
Because slavery is the cheapest and most profitable form of business.
In a way, we already have slavery. 🤔
You can quit your job. But you need money. So good luck finding a better employer before your savings run dry.
But if you don't have any savings, well, too bad.
And if you can't build savings because you chose the wrong career path, well, too bad.
On the other hand, if government is meant stay out of the market, then the market must not be protected by the government either.
So, no police will be there in case of burglary. And if an angry employee sets his office on fire, there will be no governmental law to handle the situation.
Employers must pay their own police. And since government makes the law and the law can not tough businesses, the employer also needs to deal with all that too.
Basically there can not be a single small business. Only the already mega filthy greedy rich corporations are powerful enough to sustain them self without the government.
Hence the neo liberals will say that we obviously need both.
Yes, cherry picking. And the mega filthy greedy rich get to decide on the cherries they take.
Total regulation of corpos is a taboo because China. People are hyper allergic to even theorize over it. They simply somewhere heard that China is bad and everything from there is bad. And in logical consequence heavily governed markets must too be bad. There can not be a nuance to it. I read it on a meme, and it was funny, so it must be true.
Excellent 👍
Super interesting video, the parts discussing mental illness and capitalism resonated with me and hit me in the gut.
The history of the Mount Pelerin Society would be illustrative here. Hayek and Mises were sidelined. There's a reason why neoliberalism isn't simply called liberalism. It was an attempted synthesis where the statist faction prevailed.
"Capitalism" is when the central bank prints its way out of a housing crisis and into more crises which rationalize further central planning...
After I read some books like creature from Jekyll island or Us monetary history by Murray Rothbard it changed my thinking.
College and mainstream teaches a persons wealth is the nominal number. I remember some good Christian teachers that taught paying the estate tax is good because we don’t want aristocracy. But now years later I’m like hmm.
Half of the issue is never never talked about which is money supply or printing and privately owned central banks.
Who cares if a guy appears rich by owning land when in reality the land went up in price cause banks and government printed more money? If it’s the same land it’s the same. An ounce of gold or copper etc is still one ounce. Yet gold etc went from the fixed price of $35 to like $2400 today over the last few decades.
The monetary system does matter. Capitalism where there’s no central banks and workers are paid in gold and silver money so they can’t be robbed by inflation or theft of purchasing power is a way way different system then the alleged capitalism we have today.
Remember Thomas Jefferson also promoted capitalism where there’s a small government and no privately owned central bank but the individual is protected. Alexander Hamilton wanted private central banks and big government and less individual protection.
Just cause you use the word capitalism doesn’t mean your statement applies to all capitalism forms. The central bank is privately owned and the federal reserve pays a 6% dividend to Wall Street. But remember the federal reserve is the third central bank in the U.S. Capitalism existed before there were central banks. Capitalism existed when gold and silver were money, too.
@@koltoncrane3099 Generally socialists conflate the modern statist system with capitalism. If we want to be clear we can say laissez-faire. The popular discourse has been captured by the statists.
Even the words we use have been redefined. The price inflation vs. inflation of the money supply issue is another good example.
Algorithm bump! Thanks for covering this :)
I'm so happy to see this one. This book was the nail in my radicalisation journey. Hope to see more from Fisher.
Any other thinkers in that area you think are must reads for people on the level of Fisher?
Good job
Stephen, they're taking down Google Podcast on June 23rd! Soon, we will only be able to get to your good stuff on Spotify, which is a platform I'm trying to avoid, actually. Can you please update and reorder your catalog on UA-cam Music? It's incomplete and out of order. Love you and what you do ❤
Yes, even in social work. Yes
You're asking the wrong question.
The real question should be HOW DO WE transcend capitalism?
you got any ideas besides the failed communist/socialist experiments? Let's hear them.
Enjoyed listening to this one! Lively debate with a little right and wrong on each side. (Any philosophy that emphasizes the individual and his/her freedom is A-OK with me. Give me JS Mill any day. I've seen the opposite on the other side of "the Curtain," and it's soul-crushing ... so, yes, I'm biased ... but so are we all.)
the great lie in all of this is to idealize capitalism in the original Adam Smith concepts of independent tradespeople competing in open markets, whereas the reality consists of huge "trusts" that tend to monopolize or control both markets and buy politics
We already have a modified capatilism; I feel it just needs bit more tweaking...
0:48 *Degrowth communism* as alternative to capitalist illogic of endless growth. Jason Hickel and Kohei Saito have good ideas here around shifting away from our erroneous GDP based index and decommodifying the core economy to orient production on meeting basic needs of people. Which means more life for normal people, universal education and healthcare, more healthy food/water/land, less work that is more meaningful and more time to spend building family and community relationships.
Main argument for Neoliberalism is freedom and effeciency. I guess the criticue could be concentrated on them. Freedom and efficiency is not equally distributed.
Looking forward to ideas for next steps because ultimately individuals with power will have to be accountable for their actions as judged by the greater community. When has that worked out well? Beyond never……
It does reasonate.
Soo good
I was asked to provide 3 references for my mentally and physically disabled brother, so he could do voluntary work in a food bank...?
We've literally run out of time. Even if we could "come together", which we can not, the earth (our very mother who raised us in the spiritual hope of realizing our interconnectedness) will soon shrug us off.
Oh dear a Mystic.
@@dwwolf4636 Mystical?... Perhaps. Sad, mostly. But is that not our lot? :)
miss that guy today
Ya know, I grew up in a cult, learned what it did to me and that capitalism does the same things to people. And have learned a little of what capitalism is, it's current components etc.
I think I'm going to run for president in about 10 years when I'm old enough! I'll spearhead the revolution. Y'all keep talking and let me listen and learn. I've listened to thousands of hours of this type of stuff and learned a lot, but I got a lot more to learn. Thanks for this information.
🙏
at last!
I think I’ll have to listen to this at least 30 times, not because it was unclear, but because it was so good!!! Thank you
🎯
Read "The Managerial Revolution"
Would you please tell me the author of this book? I'll look for it.
@@sebastiaosalgado1979 James Burnham.
@@-lollipopsunder-7044 thanks
Learned from this vid that Fisher died. Shame.
Liked the video. I think you could have emphasized externalities as understood by economics but maybe this isn’t something Fisher didn’t cover as much? I’ve really only heard soundbites from him. I’ll prioritize reading him shortly.
There was a schism in economics in the 50s/60s about public goods and externalities and the role governments should play in addressing them. Mainstream consensus is that there is a role for government to address these problems but the other side of the debate I think captured the popular imagination of what economics is.
The externality question makes the problem of a self regulating capitalism a huge deal. If you go back to the gilded age or even today there’s a reason why deception, hiding pollution, hiding harms, is rewarded. The story about the radium girls or Thomas Midgely pushing leaded gasoline doesn’t sound that different from the Sackler family pushing opioids on an entire country or Facebook knowingly tweeting their algorithms in a way that makes teenage girls suicidal.
The great depression was a direct result of federal reserve policy. And it did have the effect they hoped, all the business heads got filthy rich. It still happens today, twice in my lifetime. Most recently in 2020.
I think a lot of people believe certain beliefs that lean towards conspiracy is for the tendency of those that have everything and the only thing left is to toy with people's lives I guess maybe that's why they act like they do? I don't know, I'm not omniscient.
❤
Well I mean the way we think about individualism is culturally constructed. The cultural intelligentsia are almost always somewhere on the winning side of the dividing line and so the concept of individualism gets constructed from their intuition. It is then no surprise and certainly no conspiracy that it aligns with what makes those people comfortable.
This is how we get the diplomacy of compatiblism, this is how we get trickle down economics, this is how we get arguments that are supposed to lead to some greater good for all without any analysis of the inescapable collectivist conclusions of supposed individualist based thinking.
If one were actually thinking rationally and honestly about individualism it would naturally lead one to collectivist methodologies. Unfortunately it appears that being on the winning side of the dividing line makes one susceptible to all sorts of cognitive distortions that are formulated as principles, taken as axioms that in the absence of constant scrutiny becomes thinly veiled faith that must be defended lest we fall victim to the evils of communism.
Even you good sir are kind of part of this problem. 30:11 It's about here where you allow the very cognitive distortions you've been laying out to bleed back in, there's a balance? We don't want to give people a pass? We need accountability? I feel I can safely venture to guess that your definition of accountability is derived from libertarian freewill or the apologetics of the compatibilist definition thereof right?
If one is being intellectually honest, then all we can safely talk about is bounded by the "behavior" of material, feedback loops, chaos (complexity) and possibly randomness but ultimately casually deterministic. The way the feedback loops behave are determined by chaos and maybe some randomness but there's nowhere in that framework for you to stand and rationally proclaim some such feedback loop must be "held accountable", there is no balance here, honestly there is no individual, there is only environment.
I get that we have to draw our lines somewhere, the system is just too chaotic to take it as a whole, we must segment it to better understand it and the points of experience within that system that we call people (or brains if you want to include other animals, subsystem or some such if you want to include "AI") is as good as any. Yet and still, these are complex but *determined* feedback loops. The kinds of accountability this calls for doesn't introduce a "balance" far from it, it calls for a kind of accountability that isn't at all principled but rather completely instrumental.
(EDIT: All editing is for corrections of spelling, not argument or thought)
It sucks big time.. and getting worse.
Stay frost out there, people.. FIGHTING!
18:39 so far so good, but I want to pause here and say that your representation here of the way to fulfillment or achivement is through self-commoditization and consumerism. That is one culture of capitalism, but certainly not all.
For example, if I want a shed, the only way I can get a shed is to sell myself for more and take that money and pay someone else to build a shed? No. I could absolutely build it myself. I could get family or friends to help me. I could hew the boards myself to try to save money on lumber at the expense of time. Maybe someone has leftover hardware they would be willing to trade for my old unused vaccume cleaner.
This is all capitalism without consumerism. To conflate the two is inaccurate.
(But maybe you acknowledge this later in the video. You have been doing a great job up to this point at presenting different sides quite fairly)
22:26 minimizing government intervention leads to greater use of government by corporations as a market intervention tool?
The logic here doesnt seem to hold, nor do real world examples. As the regulatory power of the US has expanded, so too has the special interests' time and energy investment. As it becomes a bigger and bigger access point to market control, it becomes a more important target for the rich and well connected.
25:50 okay, maybe I cant put myself into the neoliberal mindset; I am too stuck in the classical liberal way of thinking. But the discription you just gave of an employee net being a bad employee even though they arent doing work...no. That is a bad employee. If your employment with the company nets the company less value than the cost of your paycheck, you are costing the company money. That is not a benifit to them, and the fact that you lie about the work doesnt make you "just smart". It makes you a liar.
Imagine if someone paid you to fix their door, and you never got the job done but still expected pay every day you showed up. You are just really good at convincing them that you just need a couple more pieces of hardware. Check please.
Are you just a "smart" door repair man? No! You are a charlatan. You are not benifiting the people you are exchanging with, but extracting wealth from them. That isnt capitalism.
32:49 why the mental health issues?
Because the generations were born into a world where they were told that they would have to defeat great evils...yet most all the great evils could not be found within the area any longer.
Because we were raised that to suffer discomfort is harm, and so we become weak and brittle.
Because we were raised by government schools.
Because we were never taught how to do things for ourselves, and so we feel trapped into having to pay others to do things for us.
Because the internet allows for us to communicate more with people a million miles away than to spend time with people across the street.
This isn't a failure of rugged individualism. It doesnt even track with the rise of American individualism. It tracks with modern tech, modern culture, modern ineptitude, and modern expectations.
more heidegger pls
What I love about your channel is that you provide solutions or possible ways forward.
Either the world order falls apart in a terrible way for almost all people OR a group decides to as5a5sinate a number of billionaires AND destroy offshore bank servers/data+ physical bank vaults --in order to ATTEMPT to create leverage.
Bollocks my friend! What about if it is philosophy it self that it's terrible and deeply depressed long ago... unable to transform the world, unable to think it, Totally unfertile and rather aside and marginal... unable to grasp the thing itself but also unmatch to theorize it. Surpassed in the day to day world by the practical disciplines and also dumb in solving things.... what if...?
18:30
applying classical liberal ideas to economics wouldn't lead to capitalism. ideas like individual sovereignty and Locke's labor theory of property (he supports the commons and labor is what grants the right to extract property from the commons. thomas jefferson would reiterate the commons, when he states the earth is owned by all man in usufruct) are actually undermined by capitalism through contradiction. labor, for instance, sells their sovereignty for less than the value of the product they create (the important part is they sell it), and the very notion that grants the capitalist the capital is denied the laborer simply because he's using the capitalist's capital.
from state Socialism and Anarchism by Benjamin Tucker:
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price - or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price - these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, - interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.
what he's arguing against is the idea of investing capital in place of labor, because he's saying that that capital is already the payment in full.
Tucker was an Individualist Anarchist, which he says are "unterrified Jeffersonians". Jefferson criticizes capitalism as a system that creates class, dependence, and violates natural law by extending property rights so far as to exclude the majority from owning any. he all but outright calls it wage slavery. he says wage labor is dangerous to the republic, mostly because it'll end up being an oligarchy, a corruption of republican ideals where the economic elite rule, like Carthage (he would use a term like "financiers"). Tucker espouses Proudonian Mutualism, which is in agreement with Ricardian (or Smithian) socialism, where the workers own the means of production they are using in the form of worker cooperatives. Proudhon echoes Smith's notion of landlords "reaping where they haven't sown" by applying it all of capital. hence capitalist capital means "property is theft". Mutualism (mondragon was built on mutualist principles) sees a society of individual artisans and worker cooperatives, where the individual either makes their own decisions regarding their own work or through consensus when in conjunction with other individuals. where the capitalist ignores Locke's proviso, the mutualist fulfills it through "occupancy and use norms"....meaning what isn't allowed is absentee property that is necessary for things like landlordism.
Locke--->Jefferson---->Tucker---->Proudhon. Classical Liberalism's logical conclusion is a form of Libertarian Socialism.
Noam Chomsky made a presentation in the 70s that explains how Classical Liberalism's principles lead to Libertarian Socialism (although he's more of a descendent of Bakunin). he cites people like John Dewey and Wilhelm Von Humholdt.
It's called Government of the Future and it's found here:
ua-cam.com/video/SnfioOtrBro/v-deo.html
I so needed this. Sitting on my front porch smoking a joint. ❤
Great video! I will say to me an economic system and a government is made by people so a system is rotten as long as the people values is in it are rotten.
I think neoliberalism had a disastrous effect on people ethics and integrity. Hyper-individualism corroded social values, families and sacrifice for something greater than self.
Say what you will but religion (with all its issues) played historically a fundamental role in tempering human proclivity towards social darwinism.
Imagining a future is not a question in my humble opinion of what new system we want to have but rather what new values as a society we want to uphold. Only a new man is able to think of a new society.
I will say something outrageous to modern sensibilities. In our hyper materialism present the future will be spiritual where religion and God will return back in human minds with a vengeance.
Who profits from capitalism? All around the world people are getting poorer. Only the worldwide "1%" is taking advantage on the financial neoliberal capitalism.
1% is probably a generous oversimplification
there is 1 now, #neobengal
Fundamental attribution error?
The speaker needs to appreciate the process of *financialization* of the economy , concommitant with many factors, but perhaps fundamentally with Peak Energy. The trouble with philosophers might seem to be that they tend to regard research outside of the humanities with excessive aloofness. (The result is rather superficial ontologies/rather superficial conceptualizations of the given)
Because most people never mentally explore past their current envelope?
Perhaps these structures are emergent qualities, culturally decorated, and the notion that one can choose here, well, is a bit presumptuous.
Hello
When will you cover people who actually defend Capitalism?
To think beyond capitalism, think beyond the delusion of 'free will.'
Why do you believe that free will is a delusion my friend?
@@Inspiredkey.poetry I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective.
Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality.
I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments.
Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid. Your Judges are idiots. Your entire civilization is a delusion.
Don't even get me started on the symbols at its core. There is a specific flower established in Western Civ as the central symbol of your Pillar Capital orders, from the City of David (likely earlier as well, possibly as early as the establishment of Griffins at Knossos and perhaps earlier as the winged protective deities of Mesopotamian art) through the Corinthian Order, and it is going to utterly destroy everything.
So much murder. So much racism. So much injustice.
And no free will anywhere to be seen.
@@Inspiredkey.poetry I tried to respond earlier, but I am one of the most censored people on the internet. lol
I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective. Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality. I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments. Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid. Your Judges are idiots. Your entire civilization is a delusion.
@@Inspiredkey.poetry I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective. Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality. I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments. Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid.
They hate the Truth.
@@Inspiredkey.poetry Sorry, I'm supercensored or something lol
EDIT: I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective. Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality. I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments. Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid. They hate the Truth.
Zoe Baker has a good anarchist vid ua-cam.com/video/VP31dPtbHLc/v-deo.html I am skeptical of anarchism but this covers the questions that arise in the video one after the next.
I’ve found with anarchism that, while I’m highly skeptical as well, it provides the most intriguing analysis of a variety of issues, not just capitalism. Since it’s focused on rooting out domination, it focuses heavily on the mechanics of power, which I always think leads to an interesting analysis.
this is what libertarians have been saying for decades
We are all liberals now
Lol
"Why we can't think beyond capitalism". Man, I hate that title so much.
I have little trouble thinking beyond capitalism, and none whatsoever when I confine myself to the dystopian side of the fence. It's incredibly easy to do worse, and if you attempt to do better linking arms with people who don't understand this, it's almost a _certainty_ that you will do worse.
From this perspective, denigrating capitalism is the least productive move away from capitalism.
Beauty is truth and truth is beauty, and that's all you need to know-so long as you _also_ understand that ugliness is often just truth you don't fully understand yet. Capitalism is not so ugly that any damn thing that sounds good is an obvious improvement.
26:17
I'm of the firm belief that the major problem with society is this black and white view of the world - that somehow capitalism is good and socialism is bad. I think it is a matter of choosing the correct system to align with your goals.
For example: Is the goal to make money and advance industry? Capitalism is a good choice. Is your goal to increase a population's health? Capitalism is probably the wrong way to go, as the financial incentive increases with the number of sick people. Absolute idealism is narrow sighted
'capitalism' is an inadequate concept - handicappingly inadequate (ironically, Marx never even used the word)
yo, im kinda of a "new leftist" right there. orthodox communist ideas are pretty good aside all the new liberal leftist ideas but here is the issue, when u trying make the real social order with a one regime that hierercial on top, it becomes communism to statism and becomes utopia to dystopia. how can we solve this? i think thats the next episode but i can only think of techno communism as a solution and we are not there yet. until that day comes i think imma social democracy enjoyer idk and cant think anything else.
I mean, you can't just assume that every single communist/socialist experiment will end up becoming a party dictatorship (also, that's more a tendency of marxism-leninism specifically), that happened in the 20th century for various reasons, namely the threat of a capitalist/imperialist take over (USA, NATO, fascist regimes, reactionary groups, expelled capitalists...) and the powerfulness of the Soviet Union which lead to 1. the imitation of most of its model by other countries (like Cuba or China) or 2. the imposition of its model by the soviets themselves, specially under Brezhnev (like Czechoslovakia or Hungary).
However, I have to disagree that it was a "dystopia", I mean, currently North Korea can be considered one, but so can be South Korea tbf, but the Soviet Union, Burkina Faso, Cuba or Eastern Germany were good countries to live with completely free healthcare, free sport activities, free/incredibly accessible housing, free public transportation, completely free education (even college), low prices to essential products, a care for comfortable city planning, moreover almost everyone had a job, there were low rates of crime or prostitution in most advanced socialist countries (for example, Mao's China was in an early period of revolution and transformation of its society and it never actually got to the advanced stage I'm alluding to, since Deng Xiao Ping turned the country's marxist-leninist socialism into state capitalism). Obviously, there were major flaws, censorship, lack of democracy, bureaucratization of the state decision making, the political party's monopoly, weak commodity production, etc...
In my opinion we have to look to the Soviet Union and the other "communist" states or attempted proletariat revolutions (like the Carnation Revolution and the German Revolution of 1918) and take what they got right and criticise what they got wrong to create a new future free from the misery of global capitalism. The overall message of Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism I would say is that: if you stop trying imagine a better future, it means they are winning. If you ask me, social democracy is not enough, it is not the better future for our planet that we need to imagine on the long run.
Communist ideology doesn't end at "statism". Most of Communist ideology leads to worker control of the government and economic democracy. It was thought that the state would need be used to create a classless society and then the needs of bureaucracy would be lost. I don't think communism leads to statism, but rather war and embargo lead to statism. When a country needs to quickly develop an army in order to defend itself from capitalist imperialism, a clear need for strong governance emerges.
I would be wary of social democracy. It quickly leads to fascism. Germany saw that their social democrat elected president basically handed power over to the Nazi's. And the U.S.A is currently working on project 2025 in order to put more control into the hands of the president in order to restore the "family" values.
My answer to "how can we solve this?" is to create new economic & political systems. I, for one, see a future in which trade unions control major parts of the economy and have national conventions in order to democratically plan the economy. A national convention of brick layers, construction workers, office workers, and other trades.
@@alantucker9544Ah yes the age old pablum of Michael Parenti: none of the atrocities of the pseudo-communist Soviet Union or CCP were ever actually their fault. Zero accountability. The most successful example of real anarcho-communism that has ever existed were the Israeli Kibbutzim. Yea the ones that you pseudo-leftists sht all over. And now the far right has gained more power in Europe, because no one is going to give power to obvious hypocrites. 👏 👏 👏 congrats.
Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, none of them work without some form of strong nationalism.
if socialism failed on it's own, capitalists wouldn't spend so much trying to destroy every attempt. the only successful enterprise is human cooperation. don't kid yourself sparky
@@NoPrivateProperty people need to recognize the others as part of the their tribe and invest in the future of the tribe. Else it ends up in selfishness and corruption, no matter what system.
@@alfinal5787 humanism. as Einstein suggested
@NoPrivateProperty it's naive to think you'll get all of humanity to work together short of an alien invasion
@@andrewbowen2837 we came up with idea of "council" to cooperate as a town instead of one elder
We came up with the idea of parlament to cooperate as a governmental body instead of monarch and his 4 advisers/cousins
We came up with the idea of electorial democracy to cooperate as a state
We fly faster than sound, have transcontinental live video communication, fix genetic diseases with CRISPR, and came up with machines that now generate any video from a text query.
I'm sure we can figure some shit out
Unfettered capitalism may well be an expression of human nature and be left to self adjust Towards homeostasis.... But so is greed, selfishness and territorialism. Capitalism appeals to the worst instincts