Episode

[@Anarcath]

The egg example was hilarious!

[@JoaquinArguelles]

The Edison/Tesla example was hysterical!!!! I couldn't stop laughing.

[@vtsirkinidis]

Gordon Ramsicles is my new favourite philosopher

[@maxheadrom3088]

But ... Adam Smith never defended free markets! He was for strong regulation, actually!

[@BrassicaRappa]

I'm trying to get better at "liking" your videos after I've watched them, but it's hard to remember when I'm engrossed in a particular thought and bouncing around between videos in various places on the platform. This is *not* my first time listening to this one, but I'm only just hitting "like" now. Oops! Here's a comment to feed the algorithm!

[@god8020]

A better analogy with the eggs i think would be that there is a room full of people that we need to feed and always there are people that doesnt like the eggs the way you make it. You stick with the old ways blindly either when you are ignorant of the problem or the solutions or if you already like the eggs. In a society you cant say "if it isnt broken dont fix it". Something is always broken something always got to go and the best way is through reason i think.

[@ipitchford]

I tend to favour innovation and rapid change when the social need is great. After all, who would want a gradual phasing out of slavery?

[@sirhumphreyappleby8399]

Oh I don’t know, someone who realised it was hugely economically important, and doing so quickly might cause a civil war...

[@christinemartin63]

Gradations of grey -- so true about life.

[@danielc6106]

Your country definitely needs Thomas Paine for your healthcare.

[@WizardofEarthsea]

Hey! Love your videos--can I make a request? I'd love to hear your take on Dadaism.

[@ChristopherBlieka]

Hardest part about listening to this show now is the strong neo-liberal energy. In this particular case, the assumption that Left v Right essentially = Clinton Democrat v Reagan Republican. Not hating on the show for that reason but it is a potent sign of the times in which these early episodes were first recorded, and some of those assumptions have not aged well. Barely a decade old and it's amazing just how much of a different political world it was...

[@yosephsolomon7905]

No, no. Burke was trying to keep the monarchy. Come on now. This is intellectual dishonesty. Burke was trying to protect his interest through the monarch.

[@chihiro8758]

Form a new system did not automatocally means it will be perfect and we must see the problems of the free market

[@chihiro8758]

And preserve wisdom of previous generations may mean question our current society and preserve the true things we need and try to change in a better way

[@Existentialist-earthling52]

Strict Teslaist (Nikola Tesla that is)

[@VitalyMack]

I don't think it's that complicated. If you're on the left you believe in a more bottom up society and the opposite on the right. I think all the confusion comes from cultural reprogramming, in order to make the population bewildered and confused, and thus stay away from policy making. Now the argument that the podcaster is making isn't wrong, its just a different type of left vs right.

[@projectmalus]

Maybe the confusion comes from people seeing this choice you describe, the lefties believing in a bottom up society etc, but in reality there's only a top down economic and political system. There is a potential choice but it ain't there yet. For me, a bottom up system would solve the problem of marginalization (old and young) and might involve removing the profit motive from certain things, like housing. This might mean the doing away with the concept of land ownership and instead introduce land stewardship. There needs to be a way to positively deny the natural tendency for groups to become larger.

[@VitalyMack]

@@projectmalus the confusion comes from deliberate misinformation. By the mainstream entertainment and media outlets. But I believe its definitely here in terms of bottom up governance, just not that far down. For example we don't have a monarchy anymore.

[@VitalyMack]

@Juan Correa lol...I used the most basic definition that is based on historical French writing. Stay in school be cool.

[@jaf1995ful]

Why argue against capitalism? Certainly we need control over corporations. The possibility of a single entity becoming so large that it employs an unreasonable and potentially dangerous amount of influence over the population is certainly legitimate. One could argue that corporations like Google, Facebook, Amazon have absolutely and completely changed the landscape of the world as we know it. And there is a great potential for abuse when these sort of corporations use their power to shape the discourse of the people when they decide to become arbiters of said discourse. I used to be an advocate of a complete Laissez-faire economy, but I’ve since seen the potential for abuse when that power is left unchecked. At the same time, I would argue the true capitalism is nothing more the harnessing of our natural desires for promotion of self for the good of society, in a way that both appeases our human nature, and subsidizes good things like innovation, individual initiative, production, and wealth accumulation. I long thought that concepts like Marxism, and its subsidiaries, naively appeal to human virtue for their success, and upon realizing the failure of virtue, is compelled to turn to force to realize its goals. Which of course defeats the purpose. What sort of utopian society abrogates the freedom and liberty of its citizens? Not one I wish to live in, certainly.

[@burnttoast111]

@@jaf1995ful "Why argue against capitalism?" Because capitalism fails spectacularly in cycles. And there can be cause severe consequences for those failures. The Nazis were fringe (with something like 3% of popular support) before the 1929 stock market crash, and saw massive popular support as a result of that crash. Arguably they would never have gotten into power without that crash, and Germany would have had a very different history since then. "Certainly we need control over corporations." History has shown this to be impossible under capitalism. And if they are blocked from some practices in one country, they will do it in another. The problem is that it is more profitable to be unethical than it is to be ethical (paying workers living wages, etc.), and corporations have to compete against each other. The most profitable ones have the advantage. "I long thought that concepts like Marxism, and its subsidiaries, naively appeal to human virtue for their success, and upon realizing the failure of virtue, is compelled to turn to force to realize its goals." There was no failure of virtue. Being attacked, having coups orchestrated by the US against you, etc., is not a failure of virtue. The simple fact is that countries which embraced socialism / communism were typically poor, and experienced a lot of development in healthcare, education, employment, etc., greatly increasing the living standards of those countries. The Soviet Union was under foreign attack from the very beginning, and to assume no response was needed is childish. It started off as a poor agricultural country, and rapidly developed to the point where it was leading the US for a while in the space race. Granted, there was some spectacular stupidity in the leadership towards the end (largely with vast overspending on the military) which led to the fall, and the government even ignored a popular referendum where the people wanted it to continue. And even decades later, most people who lived under communism and capitalism think life under the former was better. This is in stark contrast to the Nazis, whose primary enemy was a phantom of the paranoid imagination. And the US has a long history of using force to get what it wants, ignoring the democratic wishes of other countries if that is in conflict with its interest. Even murdering its own citizens if they are ideologically viewed as a threat. Don't fool yourself into believing such force doesn't exist under capitalism. "What sort of utopian society abrogates the freedom and liberty of its citizens?" Marx rejected utopian ideals, which were a part of earlier concepts of socialism. Marx wasn't striving for the perfect society, but laying the groundwork to try to reach the best society possible, making adjustments where necessary. And he didn't claim to know exactly what it would look like either, since it didn't exist. And as I pointed out, murdering your own citizens, as the US has done, 'abrogates the freedom and liberty of its citizens'. The US even incarcerates its own citizens as a for-profit institution, which also applies. Under capitalism, it's a money-maker, and no one does it like the US. The entire point of Marxism was to reshape society so that it is democratic, and served the interest of the people, rather than just those who control the wealth. To shift the focus from maximizing profits to maximizing the human condition. To try to compare Marxism to capitalism without realizing the goals are different is to miss the entire point of Marxism.

[@Tobi-oi3uf]

So You're telling me I'm a right wing communist?? Lol

[@josemaker5252]

Believe or not, "left communism" and "right communism" where actual political movements back in the day, though they didn't think of themselves as right-wingers in the contemporary (conservative/"libertarian") sense

[@Tobi-oi3uf]

@@josemaker5252 What do those terms mean then?

[@whatdupdoh]

@@josemaker5252 as in revolutionary vs reformist? Or do you mean authoritarian communism and anarcho communism? Or national communism and global communism?And which would be left and which would be right?

[@josemaker5252]

@@whatdupdoh "Left communism" is a loose term to describe many early marxist thinkers and political parties. They were influential enough for the term to remain somewhat relevant after all this time, though you'll mostly find it in the context of theoretical discussions (especially in reference to Lenin's polemic against them). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism When I say "Right Communism" I'm mostly refering to the so-call "Right Opposition" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Opposition

[@Orionsbelt31]

Actually while the original spectrum that eminated via France was left/right, a more modern spectrum [50+ years at least] includes both a north [authoritarian] and south [libertarian/liberal] axis. Eg; Nazi (national socialists) where LEFT wing and ran essentially a planned/mercantile economy. Right wing would be present day Middle East under theistic autocratic regimes. You can have "authoritarian" [north axis] regardless of left or right, same for "nationalism".

[@MatauReviews]

the nazis privatized an insane amount. the political compass axes are really silly imo. nazis are very firmly right wing

[@Orionsbelt31]

@@MatauReviews No the nazi's socialized an insane amount and it was their central controlled system that proved one of the factors in them losing the war. This is not a new perspective by any stretch. Nazi literally stands for national socialist. So now we're back to my comment in understanding the 4 quadrant political spectrum where authoritarianism and even "conservatism" - eg; hard line non secularism - spans from left to right BUT is north on the spectrum. Opposite is going south to less controls on the system. Socialism lends itself to authoritarianism and ironically a 'flavor' of conservatism due to its rigidity.

[@MatauReviews]

@@Orionsbelt31 yes you should listen to known truth teller adolf hitler when he says that his conservative, ultranationalist, and racist party is “socialist”... god dude

[@MatauReviews]

@@Orionsbelt31 read blackshirts and reds by michael parenti

[@MatauReviews]

@@Orionsbelt31 no they VERY didn’t

[@user_1606]

I don't know why you see everything upside down😅or maybe it's me not you😂....in my country we had revolution..and i feel how stupid is...i know after revolution how many things return back as same as before revlotion becsuse people can't adjust themselves to new slogans..only some people lost their life for nothing😢...changes must slowly happened ..your gordon scramble egg also it will be better when you do it second time ...by the way you can't make revolutionary cup cake in just looking to ramsay it's take time...ask your wife

[@luciana5131]

Is this podcast left or right?

[@user_1606]

You had a war over slavery on usa but was the matter finished by that bloody war??...until 1970 you had issue with african american rights...i have a dream!!...proggress hapened slowley