Stephen Hicks: How Failed Marxist Predictions Led to the Postmodern Left

Dear reviewer of my channel, please read: permalink.ph...
Stephen Hicks is a Canadian-American philosopher who teaches at Rockford University, where he also directs the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. In 2004 he wrote "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault"
In this clip, he talks about what Marxism is, how it failed and how the need for a new left movement led to postmodernism. Full clip, quoted under fair use: • Stephen Hicks - Explai...
--------------------
This channel aims at extracting central points of presentations into short clips. The topics cover the problems of leftist ideology and the consequences for society.
If you like the content, subscribe to the channel!

[@sarsaparillasunset3873]

What we're seeing, however, is that the Communist regimes that survived have learned to adapt. This is the case of China and Vietnam. They've figured that open markets is better for the regime in the long term, so they've integrated capitalism into the economy. They do this not because they care about the well-being of the citizenry, but holding power they know they can benefit from the immense wealth creation of the free market. Plus they learned that a wealthier population is less likely to revolt. In this sense, these Communist regimes are no longer communist, even as they retain their authoritarian governing structure. With free market, there is more respect for private property, and increase in individual freedom, but this is at the grace and mercy of the rulers, not a constitutional right. The regime, however, is by nature paranoid, and will suppress dissent to secure its power. In short, we're dealing with a new type of political adversary in the 21st century. It's no longer apt to apply socialism labels with the same connotation as before. China, Vietnam is moving towards a strange dystopian future, but it's the same dystopia the leftist movements in the West are ushering us towards: a "benevolent but oppressive" one-party government that allows restricted capitalism. It is unclear what long term problems these regimes will run into that might entail their demise, so we don't really have solid arguments against them, except for the restrictions on freedom. I'm not a historian, maybe there are examples of this in history that can be drawn upon to detract this movement.

[@noeltaylor3594]

Communism will never work or be seen as working in a capitalist run world. Capitalism doesn't want that. Look at Haiti. While not communist, the capitalist have beaten that country to shreds. Why? Because the World Bank and IMF run things, that's why.

[@FreeSpeechClub]

Appreciate you linking our full lecture and helping us spread this much needed lecture to as many people as possible ! More lectures to come soon!

[@9ramthebuffs9]

Marx had a messy room

[@SeanusAurelius]

And his wife was not a doctor.

[@lessevdoolbretsim]

And they both had stank-foot

[@matthewmalpeli]

So does Jordan Peterson twitter.com/michaelchildi/status/1007488712115187712

[@BarriosGroupie]

He also got his maid pregnant while his wife was pregnant.

[@matthewmalpeli]

Peterson has been accused of sexual impropriety three times.

[@12HHoo]

Antonio Francesco Gramsci (died 1937). The Frankfurt School. The rise of popular existentialism. These theories, ideas, movements allowed the universities to reshape ideology. Popular culture has now embraced some of these ideas and weaponized them.

[@lukedmoss]

The idea of ideas being weaponized is the real conversation taking place here.

[@Dan-lj6ow]

What an incredible speaker. I think I heard him say “um” once. I can’t even type words that fluidly.

[@johndaniel7161]

He says "right?" instead.

[@channeldoesnotexist]

Incredible deceiver, that's for sure

[@mariussielcken]

​@@channeldoesnotexistwhere's the lie?

[@junaidesse]

This guy is a spectacular speaker! I'm constantly blown away by the sophistication in his arguments

[@icantpursuewhatimtrulypass7335]

he's a liar

[@icantpursuewhatimtrulypass7335]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY

[@merlinthewizard3680]

@@icantpursuewhatimtrulypass7335 about what? Please tell me what he is lying about.

[@icantpursuewhatimtrulypass7335]

@@merlinthewizard3680 linked you a video

[@merlinthewizard3680]

@@icantpursuewhatimtrulypass7335 I don't see the link to the video

[@jamiedorsey4167]

As someone on the moderate left, I really appreciate these videos. They help me understand how the far left has lost touch with reality and give me the information I need to stand up to the increasing movement to the left.

[@leascaart]

You posted your comment 3 years ago. I stopped voting democrat in 2012. I will never vote for a democrat in a very, very long time. I hope you are standing up to the increasing movement to the left. Boys are girls and girls are boys, and 32 genders is real science. I experienced communism in Cuba and Nicaragua. The progressive left is regressive. Go figure.

[@matthewparlato5626]

Same

[@jasondashney]

Left and right are words that barely mean anything anymore, at least in North America. The left is in favour of authoritarianism and censorship and the right is all about people being allowed to do what they want. The entire philosophy of liberalism is about how the individual matters. Today that's mostly on the right and it is seen as immoral by the left who favour group identities. Look with the pandemic brought us. The left is now on their knees before gigantic mega international corporations and especially scary is how they totally bought into big Pharma. 20 years ago nobody would've believed you if you would've said that the left would love mega corporations, and censorship, and a loss of individual freedom. That they would try to ensure that academia did not allow a diversity of opinion. That it was extraordinarily easy to lose your entire livelihood and be blacklisted for saying something that they deemed offensive. They are the modern version of the 1980s right wing "moral majority". It's the strangest thing ever.

[@KibyNykraft]

@@matthewparlato5626 Check out Salerno's lectures on Marx vs marxism though. I would however take a certain point farther than him : One of the problems today is that both the extreme Left, the whole Right and the moderate Left tend to turn history on its head, and repeat something that actually is a pollution and myth from nazi times in Europe : That Marx was equivalent to what now is called marxism. This however is largely totally false. If you think about Engels, Rousseau, Weishaupt and Lenin mixed up in a pinpointed version where 1/3 of the body has the IQ of Donald Trump or an average AntiFa street grunt or QAnon people, Pride activists and Greta Thunb., you have marxism. Marx himself however was a pretty good intellectual, and pointed out a couple of very relevant issues for his time, some of them still relevant. (My place if I had been an american voter would be at maybe 80 percent Libertarian party, 10 percent Abe Lincoln republican and 10 percent JFK Democrat). Where Marx was somewhat unrealistic was believing that socialism plan economy could succeed and that the state could be abolished in the long run. Rather I would say that the political state ought to be abolished straight away and never return.

[@KibyNykraft]

Stalin, Alistair Crowley and Trotsky were proto-modernism marxists, Valerie Solanas modernity age marxist, while flat earthers, Klaus Schwab and the Burning man festival community are postmodern marxists. Karl Marx was not an anthroposophical or theosophical marxist worth mentioning. And certainly not a China marxist.

[@FreeSpeechClub]

thank you for linking our full video

[@niklasbirksted8175]

This critique of post modernism can be found throughout the history of knowledge and philosophy. Plato had a similar criticism of the sophists, Nietzsche has a passage in Gotzen-Dammerung that's also similar. Even the thinkers described as postmodernists and marxists (for example Ranciere and Foucault) critique this very development explicitly throughout their authorships. Marxism didn't create the postmodern left and abandoned reason, but if you believe it to be, and if you really want to believe it, "everything will be shaped to fit the political commitment", even if this commitment is blaming "our current epistemological crisis" on neo-marxists. But the crisis existed before both marxists, post modernists and Stephen Hicks.

[@KibyNykraft]

Then you dive into the area of subjectivism (neoplatonism) vs realism/reason/objectivism. Platon himself (we use the greek original N in Scandinavia to his name) was both an objectivist and subjectivist in some sense.

[@KibyNykraft]

In a very short version one could say that if you mix up catholic mysticism of the 1800s with totalitarian collectivism with liberal anarchism you get the Modernity movement in arts and culture philosophy. Post-modernism is the modernity movement mixed up with marxism, globalism and libertarianism. It is not only negative, but mostly it is rather dumb/anti-science and non-intellectual. Dr L Dunegan, ex KGB Bezmenov and the eagermost critics against the Burning man environment like that australian guy, were all correct that Moscow processes also re-started by Putin today (angled to manipulate also the Right into subjectivist populism like QAnon, Alex Jones, Trump community etc) = a major engine of how postmodernism spread out worldwide.

[@docmemphis]

I like the metaphor at the end. Marxism is indeed the religion of the young.

[@robZzdaboss]

Well yes, because young people who grew up in middle class family and used to getting an allowance and Christmas presents, game consoles whatever... They're going to grow up wanting this to continue into their adult life. They're literally looking for government to play a parental role in their lives.

[@docmemphis]

@@robZzdaboss they want to prevent corporatism - which is a noble pursuit.

[@jasondashney]

I once read a quote from a new mother in her late 20s in one of the Soviet republics and she said "Revolution is for the young. You can't fight a war while holding a baby".

[@mariussielcken]

​@@jasondashney'give me one generation of children and I will give you the new man!' -Lenin

[@richardgere4713]

⁠@@docmemphisthat would be a noble pursuit, except corporatism is not their primary concern. Being taken care of by the government is a higher priority. I have a 22 year old that actually believes that she should have to work only a 20 hour week, and that the government should provide the balance of what she needs (or wants?). She has friends that feel this way, and they’re not alone in this, many in this age group think this way-robZ is right.

[@Jim-xu4mz]

Enlightened presentation; Rational and informative

[@l0g1cseer47]

Indeed!

[@randymiller3918]

By every metric the more free a market the better it does. What makes you think capitalism would not last 10 years? That claim seams unfounded.

[@roar91328]

pure capitalism lasted for almost 150 years......and led to the single greatest technological and quality of living boom in history this is historic fact....... in short youre an idiot and you absolutely support socialism you just dont know it....

[@mimikurtz4061]

Randy Miller -- You say, "the more free a market the better it does". Trump obviously disagrees with you: he is imposing tarriffs on many imported goods to 'protect American jobs'.

[@Jim-xu4mz]

Jacob Richardson : Your tinfoil hat is a little too tight.

[@kvjqxzz5905]

I just find PoMo meaningless

[@ericalexanderson3442]

It is. It's based entirely on Nihilism. Which is meaningless. They do not like any meaning to be derived, because they know that a lot of the underlying truths behind the meanings will work against them. The difference is, you decide to overcome adversity, and they decide to capitalize on it.

[@drmodestoesq]

Threaten to fire a Post-Modernist Professor who has tenure. I think you'll find that he's going to do a complete 180 and tell you that words and texts have meanings....very definite meanings. That he'll bring up in his lawsuit for wrongful dismissal and violation of contract. In other words...they're complete and total hypocrites. Derrida said it best. Post-Modernism is just a fun game to play with words and language. Often at the taxpayer's or student's expense.

[@ericalexanderson3442]

Well, yes, wanting to have your cake and eat it to will always make one a hypocrite. It's entirely based on this. They want people to treat them well and read their minds without every attempting to give others the benefit of the doubt. They are their own worst enemy, and this will not change until they hurt themselves, unfortunately...or they get slapped back into reality like I did after college.

[@noyb154]

because in pomo, meaning is repressive. the only meaning in postmodernism is the meaning of power and destruction for their own sake.

[@revpgesqredux]

a Quisp decoder ring for the clevers that say nothing and put all their effort into having nothing to say.

[@alvarez985]

Stephen Hicks, Roger Scruton, Jordan Peterson is the best trio against the new left!

[@darrininmesa9750]

JesusFriedChrist The problem is that the new left has been over run with socialists. The moderate left are a Dying Breed now being called Nazi by the entire media industry, entertainment industry and academia which is serving to brainwash even more socialists in youth. Because of this we do see one good thing... moderate right and moderate left joining forces along with some small L libertarian types among the population of the Western World standing together who all seem to be at least standing together on free speech and trying as hard as possible to reveal the lies of Socialist claims concerning white supremacy around every corner.

[@willkelly9726]

JesusFriedChrist Steven Hicks is the guy in the video

[@Marcara081]

For now. Still waiting for the heavy-hitter. There's always one.

[@jl9205]

And Thomas Sowell.

[@bruceruttan60]

who is roger scruton?

[@jl9205]

Great lecture! Thanks for posting it.

[@bacongod4967]

What do you do when reality shows your idea is bullcrap? A.) admit you were wrong B.) double down and ignore reality C.) triple down and create a philosophy that says objective reality isn’t real so anything can be true so you can ignore the disastrous results of your cult- i mean ideology.

[@diminisheduk]

Brilliant. Made complete sense.

[@chilesauce7248]

Yep, makes more sense than #socialism and #communism

[@shadowstryker3178]

Here's the LIE about Marxism/Socialism. The structure is the same as Capitalism, the only difference is that you are just exchanging the word "upper" for "ruling" or the words "upper class" for "the Party". Wen the Sandinistas rolled into Managua when Somoza and his cronies fled the country, the first thing they did was not to help the poor, by distributing food, but to grab the luxurious houses that had been left behind. During the Chavez regime the exclusive Country Clubs were not "Nationalized" and opened to the general public, but rather, Chavez became a member of the clubs, just another of the upper class that the Marxists so despise (so they say).

[@shadowstryker3178]

Yes, fj, chase out all the people that have made your country the modern state it is, and gave it the maintenance that infrastructure needs (Class Envy) and then watch how it fall apart because they cannot do the required maintenance, and then blaming OTHERS for their own incompetence and the situation they are in. Case in point, SA's increasing lack of drinking water.

[@jamesmiller4184]

Well, yes, they aim at achieving an identical goal, the difference being mainly the methods used for it's accomplishment. The very capitalist-centered Jacob Schiff of Kuhn-Loeb bank of N.Y. financed much of the prefatory Bolshevik activity before 1917, this with shipped-off gold in the thousands of pounds and by hosting Trotsky, etc. (A film clip shot by the sons of the pianist Leopold Godowsky show him clearly accompanied by Trotsky on a balcony. It was shot in c.1915, and constitutes living picture evidence of his presence here, at that time.) "Global Amalgamated Inc." is THE ultimate goal of theirs. If events are viewed with this as kept in-mind, what is otherwise inscrutable will become not-so or less, at least. I am quite sure there is ONE desiring to sit in that corporation of ALL corporations director's chair. . : .

[@shadowstryker3178]

The Bank information doesn't surprise me as Marxism is Semitic Jewish creation and movement, and Marx and Trotsky were both Jews, so were most of the radicals in the 50s (Ginsberg with the Beats) and 60s (Hoffman with the Yippies, and Bill Ayers with Bernadine Dohrn with the Weather Underground).

[@michaelrafaelmakapugay7314]

Exactly these godless edgy marxists worshippers are so deep into their own bs never realized the capitalist system they've come to hate and loathe is what sustains the world as we know it and nothing is gonna change that. Hell even the first league of communist countries stopped adopting marxist-lennist-maoist economic policies. RUSSIA, CHINA, THE EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES THAT MADE UP THE WARSAW PACT ALL CURRENTLY UTILIZE FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES. Marxists dream into dissolving everything into a classless utopia, what a load of shite. Deep down these kinds of individuals hate themselves basically any who believes in a nihilistic life sapping doctrine goes along the logcial lines of "oh you poor oppressed soul, life is evil and doesnt want you to succeed the system that these white fat happy chauvanistic capitalist people is meant to grind you down to your knees in order to exploit your cheap labour, therefore we must burn down the system this is the only way we can achieve justice and happiness for us if we cant live up to the good life well lets just make everyone else miserable then". It might sound stupid and irrational but this abhorrent hole of morality in us have cannot be filled by the material pleasures of capitalism. We need strong values that resonates deep into our consciousness, all this anger, intolerance, and conflict is the result of what Nietszche called the death of God. Deeply enough this thought kept me awake for nights on end. I tried looking for answers in philosophy in order to tackle this void we are currently facing yet what has the philosophical thinkers of the 19th century lead to? The greatest mass genocide we have seen in history. Nazis misapplication of Nietszche's Ubermencsh ideology the next step of man's evolution, that the herd must be sacrificed for the birth of this great individual and lesser races ought to be sterilized. Marx and his intellectually lazy communist doctrine expousing life is basically a power struggle between the burgeousie vs proleteriat that everything in the past 2000 years of established human history is utter garbage, equipped with this mindset Stalin and Mao amassed killing at least 40 to 60 million of their own people not to mention all the other millions where a communist revolution took place. People are not ready for a world without God. Before we conducted ourselves according to the principles of heaven and hell, basically we are rewarded or punish for our actions, that there is an eternal moral and objective observer looking down to judge our daily lives. That is why philosophers like Kant wasnt so eager yet to dismiss the idea of God, for what then becomes our moral compass and bedrock of reason? Philosophers grant no answer to this dilemma. Without the concept of an eternal judge floating over the heavens human beings become unhinged in their actions everything is now up for grabs in the politically correct name of egalitarianism and equality of all. Jesus said I am the truth! Pontius Pilate says what is the truth? Consciousness is the truth "I think therefore I am" and life is the path of walking the uncertaintees of not knowing the whole truth. We dont boast to know universal truths but we do need a bedrock of knowledge in order to be grounded so we may not fall into the pit of nihilism where all actions are inevitably meaningless. We have power to better our lives, its only sad to see people have been convinced by envious persons that they are powerless. We are the products of the universe whether people interpret that scientifically or spiritually we do have agency over ourselves the universe gave us the power to act the worst thing for us to do is not utilize that will to live life.

[@maximus5550]

OH GOD it is well done presentation!

[@InkandFish555]

So good. I want a 3 hour version of this presentation.

[@lho10101]

Excellent

[@Pomiferous]

yes

[@jvhamby5]

Do you have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation? I’d love to have a copy

[@Marcara081]

18:44 - Yes, Postmodernism may have _begun_ as a crisis of faith. But for those who've never experienced this crisis but adopt postmodernism anyway, their commitment remains unexplained here.

[@robZzdaboss]

Because crisis of faith does not mean someone losing faith on an individual level, but the general lack of faith in society in general constitutes a crisis of faith. People who are raised atheist and were never religious have a crisis of faith collectively because they don't really believe in anything.

[@DieFlabbergast]

@@robZzdaboss Most people in the US and the UK these days are atheists or simply "non-believers," but VERY FEW of them were raised that way. Most people over the age of forty were more-or-less raised in the Christian or Jewish faiths, yet they no longer believe in God.

[@magicbuns4868]

The rise of Christianity was really a crisis of faith in Judaism... It created a new dogma that refused to submit to the Roman's - which was a huge dividing point in the Jewish community at the time.

[@mariussielcken]

A crisis or schism lead to a hardcore

[@terryobrien9846]

Private ownership and control of property, trade, distribution and the means of production. Or... Ownership and control of property, trade, distribution and the means of production by a centralised authority. There is no "collective" ownership and control of property, trade, distribution and the means of production, because someone has to be in charge of what is "fair" as a means of preventing the successful from becoming too successful. So which is more moral? One is generative and the other degenerative. The former does create massive disparity. Not fair? The latter does create massive equality. Fair? In the former, the poor get obesity, flat screens and a car while they move towards the middle class. In the latter, they get societal and economic collapse and starvation. So socialists. Is it the poor, or the disparity that is really the issue? If the socialist is honest, then it's the disparity that's the issue, because the poverty and starvation that socialism endlessly creates barely gets a mention, while they scream and rampage in indignation against the rich.

[@Adorni]

Terry O'Brien I think that Jordan Peterson touched on this when he noticed what was fundamentally wrong with Marxists: They don’t love the poor, they just hate the rich. Those aren’t the same thing, and a personal philosophy centered around hating someone else, whatever the reason, is a rotten philosophy.

[@terryobrien9846]

Peterson was paraphrasing Orwell. Success illuminates failure, and that leads to immense resentment. I'd heard of this idea before, but it was Peterson that really distilled it...or Nietzsche that Peterson quoted. " "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge"-thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not"-thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamour!" You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamours thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy-perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers-erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge." - Nietzsche.

[@Adorni]

Terry O'Brien I’ve always found the concept of justice to be interesting, as I don’t think that humans can ever truly achieve “proper” justice, as its almost always steeped in the concept of “revenge.” It’s a little more complicated than that, obviously, but this certainly seems to be the case with what is perceived to be “Social Justice,” which is almost entirely predicated on wreaking vengeance on those you perceive to be oppressing you. In other words, it’s not about building yourself up, it’s about tearing everyone else down, and bringing them to your level. ... Oh crap. I *_just_* realized this was Father’s primary issue in Fullmetal Alchemist: he doesn’t try to bring himself to god’s level, he literally drags god down to his. What a trip.

[@terryobrien9846]

You might like this then. Nietzsche on equality, SJWs and virtue posturing. "Behold, this is the hole of the tarantula. Do you want to see the tarantula itself? Here hangs its web; touch it, that it tremble! There it comes willingly: welcome, tarantula! Your triangle and symbol sits black on your back; and I also know what sits in your soul. Revenge sits in your soul: wherever you bite, black scabs grow; your poison makes the soul whirl with revenge. Thus I speak to you in a parable-you who make souls whirl, you preachers of equality. To me you are tarantulas, and secretly vengeful. But I shall bring your secrets to light; therefore I laugh in your faces with my laughter of the heights. Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms. The tarantulas, of course, would have it otherwise. "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge"-thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not"-thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!" You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamours thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy-perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers-erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge."

[@Adorni]

I don't exactly know if that would equate them to communists? Granted, I'm not well-versed on Native American societies, aside from the fact that they were not the "noble savages" that Hollywood wanted to paint them as (they killed each other, like, a lot. Over just as trivial of things that whitey did, no less) But they didn't engage in Captialism, beforehand. I think they employed a type of bartering system that worked because they were mostly made up of small, connected communities. The people IN the communities didn't resent one another, just those from other tribes, for whatever reasons. The simple fact of the matter is that I think if Communism were to be viable, it would have to be amongst a much smaller society. A "Country," I don't think, could ever exist as far as Communism goes. I'm not even sure a State would. It just doesn't seem to be feasible.

[@concerned1]

Truth and reason will always resurrect.

[@bv32ification]

Postmodernism was a response a period of human history that lacked a history or critical basis for itself which was modernism. Constructs were treated as reality, meaning there is nothing outside of them. A human nature was being defined with absolutely no basis outside of being dominantly accepted as true which is not to say that there is no value in those dominant beliefs but that they are not the nature of humans. The message of postmodernism was that humans have no nature. To think humans have a nature and to strive to live up to it - as if it weren’t our nature - is to live a simulation of reality. Where postmodernism went wrong was thinking there was something wrong with the beliefs and values of modern society instead of just saying, they aren’t the only ones

[@julianblake8385]

People of the world: spice up your life! AHHH! Now, seriously. Watch Hicks' talk complete. It is very, very good and very well explained. I really recommend it.

[@shiffterCL]

Link to full talk?

[@Anna_kandy]

Thank you. Very great teacher

[@kkallebb]

What happened to the rest of the lecture?

[@howtubeable]

Related to this is the Marxist narrative in the Civil Rights Movement. In the early 1950's, the NAACP in Montgomery, Alabama felt comfortable to train Rosa Parks in civil disobedience without fear that she would be tortured, raped and executed. Contrast that with the shocking oppression of Stalinist USSR. No doubt the segregated South was very unjust, but it was still more humane than Marxist countries. However, that does not fit into the Marxist narrative, so civil rights mythology has been created to fit the Marxist narrative. Yes, some protesters were killed during the Civil Rights struggle, but it was at the hands of isolated criminals, not the government. Civil RIghts history has been mythologized to fit the Marxist narrative.

[@cameron120587]

I would argue his take on socialism is a little simplified. Broadly speaking there are three types of socialism: 1. Social Democrates: grew out of the European labour union movement in the 1880s, and wanted a more just distribution of wealth. Captilasm is fine, but its excesses both high and low need to be curbed by gov't intervention in a mixed economy (free market in some areas, but also progressive income taxastion, legal regulations of the market, and social welfare programs to combat unemployment and poverty), and no revolutions. 2. Democratic Socialism: More in line with the Paris Commune attempt in the 1820s. Establish socialism through democratic means, but nationalise as much as possible to maximize employment and put the economy under democratic control. Peaceful political revolutions. 3. Communism: capitalism can't be reformed, democracy is a con, religion and popular entertainment are opium for the masses. Violent revolution is not only necessary but inevitable. Marx focused on proletariat (educated industrial workers) as agents of revolution, Moa Zedong and Pol Pot focused more on rural farmers.

[@paddleed6176]

Your take is the obvious one of an american undergraduate student.

[@channeldoesnotexist]

@@paddleed6176 Mad because he's right 🤡🤡🤡

[@michaelcarper2185]

Where is the rest of the lecture?

[@jerzykowalskiShosa]

I agree on the analysis of PostModernism. But I have a small doubt as there seems to be an ever increasing gap between the poor and the rich, especially in the west. In the developing countries, and BRIC, yes things are, on average getting better. Also there seems to be an ever smaller rate of middle class that become the upper class and more people who slide down into the lower class. Incomes in the US are stagnant in some areas. www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/09/19/u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective. In 2016 the bottom 40% were actually poorer compared to 2000 or 1999. I have some concerns if, when the next wave of automation hits us square in the employment numbers, this might deteriorate even further? Silicon Valley is concerned on this it seems, even the more conservative types of them.

[@channeldoesnotexist]

Yes, you discovered that he lied. Truth is the only reason why those predictions occurred was because the real economy was very far from the original form of capitalism as a result of the depression. That was the result of capitalism, actually. We had to introduce monstrous taxation, social programs, and literally fight a horrific war to fix it. In truth, capitalism in itself is an obvious failure. What exists today is a heavily modified version that's being held together with duct tape after it self destructed into a million pieces. Anyone saying capitalism is successful is plainly a liar. In fact, the closer we get today to the original capitalism, the closer we get to the nightmare scenario we've seen once before. In truth, capitalism doesn't work. What he have now that appears to work is perhaps something like neo-capitalism, retaining the core ideals but with heavy modifications and failsafes to prevent catastrophe. The only thing keeping it going is greed.

[@channeldoesnotexist]

Furthermore, I see no reason why one cannot apply the very same strategy to socialism, patching it up and making modifications where necessary to prevent it from going awry. Problem is an idiot in Russia rose to power under this banner and permanently tarnished its image. Don't forget Hitler decided to call his party the National Socialists. His economic and political ideas had literally absolutely nothing to do with Marx's ideas. He hated Stalin and communists with a passion. It's clear to me at least that this was just a power move meant to gain the favor of the masses. If people thought he cared about them they would support him, so the label was advantageous. I believe it was exactly the same with Stalin. I don't remember seeing anywhere that you should genocide your people and force everyone to be atheists in socialist thought. Stalin was, in my eyes, simply another psychotic totalitarian that took advantage of the popular political idea at the time and used it to gain power. Once there he did as he pleased. I don't see this as substantially different that what Hitler did. I don't think the Soviet Union is a fair representation of an implementation of socialism by any means.

[@youtubezcy]

When all wealth is concentrated in a small enough group like feudalism and a imperialism i.e. china or russia or cuba how else do you expect them to modernize?

[@kavorka8855]

I'm reading Marx's Capital, the recommended Penguin edition. I read books cover to cover, including ALL dedication and prefaces. The book starts with a 50 page defence of Marx by Ernest Mandel. Then Engels' prefaces of various editions. Then Marx's own words. What you really notice, not just sheer assertions and false claims about economics, knowing Smithian works were available to them all, but the rude style of writing of these people, especially in those days when people were extremely polite and poetic in writing. Engels refers to a critic as "the little man", an ad hominem still used by today's Marxists. It's really extremely hard to read Marx, not because the subject he'd written about is hard, but because each and every line is a load of nonsense. How could you continue reading if you thought what you were reading was simply BS?

[@julianfang3483]

I think Marx’s Analysis of the capitalist economy is pretty accurate. Maybe keep in mind, that he is referring to Fordism, not the present neoliberal Economy. 😊

[@kavorka8855]

@@julianfang3483 I've finished my research on his "analysis ". My conclusion, he was just an angry, unemployed man, a failed father who wouldn't work, he actually applied for a job only once, with upside down take of the then Victorian capitalist economy, with very little mathematical skills, approximately the level of elementary school. He also gained notoriety by sheer accident, through the French commune revolution.

[@kavorka8855]

@@julianfang3483 and I've no idea what you mean by "present neoliberal economy", the present economy of the west is still a free market capitalist economy.

[@julianfang3483]

@@kavorka8855 I think you devalule one of the greatest thinkers of our time. Sadly your argumentation is mostly based on ad hominem arguments, what makes me think you already had a finished opinion about him when you startet your research. He had some very unique ideas and of course, like every great thinker, referred to other intellectuals in his works. And obviously he made mistakes or had character flaws or whatever, but thats just not the point. You dont have to agree with me or change your mind, but maybe you try to be more open minded next time you research a topic. Confirmation Bias is real and human and I also have it, but its worth trying to see past it. Have a nice day :)

[@kavorka8855]

@@julianfang3483 I have read as much as I possibly could about Marx, his life at the time of his The Communist Manifesto, which by the way I read too, which was before his major works on Capital. Currently I have been reading on the history of modern Europe, that includes the rise and fall of communism, from Lenin to Mao. Concerning ad hominem, human biases, etc. read Pinker's Rationality, and his major works on the history of violence and progress to see who is stupid and biased, who is trying to destroy humanity, who's trying to misguide the young and intellectually vulnerable. If you think Marx said anything important or anything true, please let me know of it here. As for me, I don't deny Marx wasn't or isn't regarded as "intellectual" and "scientific", people can get famous for all kinds of things, but he failed to understand just about everything, including Hegel's dialectics, the meaning of value, the then available economic ideas and conditions of workers. Sure, some of his and Engel's erroneous conclusions were due to lack of proper data, as most things were just beginning to emerge, that included science. The Communist Manifesto is basically a blueprint for violent terrorism. Only sick and twisted would write such a thing.

[@hangukhiphop]

The subject matter of this lecture is very ideological, covering little in terms of historical events or data and referencing 0 primary accounts. I don't have a problem with people voluntarily paying for this, but it strikes me as odd that conservatives would appreciate it after having railed against the liberal equivalent so aggressively for so long. If all you wanted was increased representation in universities, that's cool, but don't hate on the other side for doing its thing.

[@MrMDK187]

Only those who have willingly turned their backs on facts could dislike this video.

[@jll66666]

Are u sure about that

[@joegee1000]

Kierkegaard reasoned that until one takes the leap over to the position of faith in that which is above materiality, into the metaphysical reality of the spirit, thinking continues to go around in circles from relativism to absolutism and everywhere in between. Without the realization and conviction of the omniscient and omnipotent figure called god, one is left with making embarrassing pronouncements like, "There is no such thing as absolute truth." Faith does not belong to the purview of the rational mind and at its apogee of human value, rationality can only point away to the need for the next level of consciousness in faith. Robert Frost, arguably the most read poet of the 20th century and four-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize was asked about his poetic technique and how he managed to be so prolific a poet, specifically how he made his poetry work... and his simple but elegant reply was, "You believe it in." When he would sit down to write, many times all he had was the belief that a poem would evolve because he had the faith in the poetic human consciousness, not necessarily in objective reality.

[@bigredracingdog466]

The only thing that is real here is, "Faith does not belong to the purview of the rational mind."

[@imacg5]

"A communist revolution of some sort will rise to fill the vacuum. But that didn't happen." - Wasn't Soviet Union rising at that time? Or it didn't count according to Mr. Hicks?

[@PaterTenebrarum1]

Where is the rest of this?

[@socalbeeguy8041]

We need to agree on ONE TERM to describe all of this. The enemy must be identified by name so that people can be aware it exists and discuss what to do about it. Post modernism, identity politics, intersectionality, relativism, political correctness, secular globalisation, etc. is too much.

[@DieFlabbergast]

Wokism

[@ccmTopher34]

I love his pace, most of the IDW, especially Shapiro, talk 100x faster and I always have to slow them down.

[@JudoMateo]

IDW?

[@logocentric9183]

JudoMateo intellectual dark web, thinkers like: Eric & Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, and others of the like.

[@JudoMateo]

Logocentric Sounds like a name given by the Ministry of truth to me.

[@logocentric9183]

JudoMateo well I certainly wouldn’t use that’s as a basis for understanding other people’s ideas...

[@haydnhopkins5562]

@@logocentric9183 "thinkers"

[@scottleft3672]

Its a balancing act learning from varients of both systems, Marx (a christian) had read Adam Smiths "The wealth of Nations", as had many industrial-ists.and was writing at a time of the railway boom/monopoly(jd Rockafella) and the "Manufactory" era, people like Henry George (Progress and poverty) were just as influencial.

[@drahcirnevarc9152]

A few weeks ago, I re-read the Communist Manifesto for the first time in about 35 years. I have to say that it was strikingly postmodernist in its tone. More than anything, it seemed to me like an extended gish gallop, with schoolboy hyperbole and the blithest non-sequitur as its stock-in-trade. The experience was very much like what happened when I tried to read Zizek.

[@jasondashney]

I read it in my early 40s and I was so disappointed. It's a petulant little brochure that is unbelievably vague. I was hoping to get a clear understanding of how communists thought. I thought it was going to be a blueprint. Instead it was just an angry little rant that was vague in the rant and vague in its suggestions, suggestions that lasted about two pages. I thought it was going to be their vision of how to run society but it wasn't at all. It was mostly just complaints about society. I tried to read it in historical context because I'm sure life at the bottom of the totem pole was much worse back then so I understood the frustration, but it was still the most low resolution thinking ever.

[@egezort]

​@@jasondashneyThe Communist Manifesto is supposed to be read by all types of people, not necessarily the philosophers. If you want a solid grasp of Marxism that doesn't have much ambiguity, you should read The German Ideology, Das Kapital, Anti-Dühring by Engels etc.

[@jasondashney]

@@egezort perhaps I will get it on audiobook. I just don’t have time to read longform books anymore. I didn’t realize it was about more than just money complaints. Thanks.

[@RJStockton]

13:20 He left out the part where the Hungarian Revolt started as an antisemitic pogrom against Communist rule.

[@raymundhofmann7661]

Why did this happen in such a big scale now and not 1000 years before? It is because of surplus resources, the massively improved living conditions for most.

[@pfhastie]

Much of his argument is laid on sand as he asserts that Marxism makes "moral" claims, and that the reduction of poverty contradicts the basic tenets of Marxism, both of which display a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism. Even if poverty were entirely dispelled from the planet, the antagonisms of inequality will always remain as long as the income disparity between the richest and poorest remains as extreme as it is. Mr Hicks is well spoken, and evokes authority, so I am going to guess that he's never lived in a working class area nor had major financial problems in his life. Sadly, this renders his perspective woefully incomplete. The New Left were/are a disaster though. They have helped to dismantle the genuinely progressive elements of Marxism, and the disparity between the rich and the poor has never been so great. Instead of focusing on how to successfully transform the economic base, they unknowingly carry out the bidding of multi-national corporations, unified by a religion called identity.

[@corinaHojan]

Peter Hastie I did think it was incredibly strange how he kept referencing this ‘moral Marxist claim’, since Marx never makes any claim to morality in all of his work

[@eorobinson3]

@@corinaHojan it’s an implicit moral claim...clearly.

[@matthewreed2614]

the new left abandoned the working class since they were recruiting among the petty-bourgeois and specially oppressed ( identity ) intellectuals

[@trainof]

Marxism is based on secular morality of equality and fairness. Exploitation is a moral concept.

[@pfhastie]

@@trainof The fact that one person is born to wealth and another to poverty within the same society causes class conflict, which is the primary source of conflict within society. To eliminate that is not a moral principle, it is a rational one.

[@tjejojyj]

Why couldn’t Hicks explain what Marx said were the contradictions of capitalism that would lead to its downfall? Given we are living though the deepest crisis since the Great Depression it should be important to show Marx wasn’t right about the present. The policy of capitalist governments around the world to this crisis is austerity, police state measures and preparations for major war signal they have no progressive solution and this is driving a renewed interest in socialism. The identification of Stalinism with Marxism doesn’t bear scrutiny. Socialism-in-one-country was a rejection of Marx’s “workers of the world unite” which was the basis on which the October Revolution had been carried out. The transformation of the Stalinist bureaucracy into a counter-revolutionary force was completed in 1933 when it aided and abetted the rise to power of fascism in Germany, then insisted its policies had been correct. The Left Opposition, under Trotsky’s leadership, had fought to unite German workers against the danger of fascism, whereas the Stalinist’s called the social-democrats “social fascists” (i.e. no different from the Nazis) and their slogan was “First Hitler, then us.” The undermining of the Spanish Revolution and purges around the Moscow Trials from 1937 to 1938, when the Stalinists killed more Marxists than any regime in history, was the culmination of their crimes. The purges also involved the murder of up to 40,000 officers of the Red Army, including most of its top leadership, on false charge of conspiring with the Nazis to overthrow the regime. This paved the way for the Molotov-Ribbentrop/Stalin-Hitler pact and horrific devastation of World War Two. How does the Marxist opposition to Stalinism fit into Hicks scheme? On one detail to show the poor level of scholarship, at 8:16 Hicks says “The Marxist theory of World War One is its all the capitalist countries getting together and going to war over resources and what is going to happen is the capitalist countries are going to kill each or weaken each other and that is going to provide the space for the communism revolution of some sort to fill the vacuum.” No Marxists said this. The pre-war resolutions of the Second Internationals said that “Should war break out nonetheless, it is their duty to intervene in favour of its speedy termination, and to do all in their power to utilise the economic and political crisis caused by the war to rouse the people and thereby to hasten the abolition of capitalist class rule.” www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/10/lect-a10.html. “War and Revolution: 1914-1917” Lenin called for turning the war into a civil war. Karl Liebkneckt in Germany, a leader of the SPD and the first parliamentarian there to vote against the war, said the main enemy was at home.

[@anng.4542]

What is it about a "DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat" that will be different from your normal, everyday dictatorship? /s

[@EmptyHouseGuy]

I enjoyed the video overall, but the concept of faith being opposed to reason is poorly constructed. Faith is best defined as "acting as though something is true even though you cannot objectively prove it is true." Understood in this way, one can see how faith is necessary to most all healthy human activity - given that most human decision making is predicated on good guesstimation. If you take a plane flight, do you KNOW that the plane is properly maintained, or do you simply have faith that it is? We're rarely actually certain of anything.

[@madraven07]

Get this man a tailor

[@judymarchant4982]

You skipped the the Russian revolution in the late 19teens. The did rise up in a time of the government collapsing. It seems this would have been a good time to work this in.

[@RonPaulPeace]

At the end of the speech, he mentioned Mises. Mises had this figured out in 1920.

[@meenki347]

What Stephen Hicks calls postmodernism is actually modernism. There are just as many pro-capitalist libertarians that have the same faith in capitalism that Marxists have in socialism. Both are modernists. The postmodernist Marxist position is not for socialism except to the extent it's a popular position. Technically, the Post-Marxist position is against both Capitalism and Socialism because they are both based upon wage slavery. The postmarxist is for communism, a society that has abolished money. However, the postmarxists realize that there must be an intermediary stage between socialism and communism or an introductory communist stage. This introductory stage must consist of three fundamental reforms, 1-A libertarian free market with respect to consumer goods only, within reason. 2- A a universal basic income equal to the per capita Gross national income ($1,000/week). For all adult humans rich, poor, black, white, etc.,male, female, trans, employed or unemployed. 3- With respect to immigration. To touch American soil is to be come free and legal. 4- direct democracy - Congress is abolished and a popular vote is assessed for every law. Strangely, while, Stephen Hicks is sure to point out the torture and killings done by socialist nations around the world. He conveniently doesn't mention the atrocities done by capitalist countries around the world. To Stephen Hicks, slavery and the genocide of indigenous populations are not even an afterthought.,however, fundamental to all capitalist states. He picks his facts as if he's implicitly a spokesperson of the slave owning and genocidal class,so, he neglects to mentions facts that contradict is narrative. While he points out, the conditions of the American poor and working class have improved over the 20th Century in America and Western Europe. He does not mention the relative improvement that occurred in Russia and China as well. He also fails to mention the gross impoverishment of people in the undeveloped but capitalist nations of the world. That he bothered to give this lecture, reveals that he's clearly having his own crisis in capitalism. Things were so much easier for the pro-capitalists not even 5 years ago when they didn't even bother to mention Marxism and could simply censor it off the airwaves. Roughly postmarxism, sees a capitalist mode of production ( newspaper mass media) from the American and French Revolutions to World War I. The state capitalist/socialist mode of production (radio/TV mass media) begins with the Russian and German (1918) Revolutions to an impending World War III. This will introduce the communist mode of production (internet mass media). Marx predicted periodic crisis of capitalism. Stephen Hicks', read the Communist Manifesto again. It's a critique of socialism in all it's forms. Read his critique of "pure socialism" it's clearly a critique of soviet style socialism. Marx was not pro socialist. He was pro communist.

[@donaldbryan1521]

WHERE’S THE REST OF THIS?!?!

[@solangesworld5150]

I was thinking, if all three classes get greater, isn't it because of the general population rising? Doesn't that just keep the status quo? Shouldn't it be a zero-sum game for it to make any qualitative sense (ex: 1 class go up, the other two go down, etc.)?

[@PaulBeardsell-0]

But wealth IS concentrated in fewer hands. The middle class IS squeezed. We have zero hour contracts. The state IS making many of the economic moves. The 1st conclusions at about the 7min mark are just not correct.

[@thechapelperilous]

Now that's as succinct an explanation and historical review of Marxism as it gets. 👌👌👌

[@fromearth6282]

Matthew Thomas Lombardo Agreed!!!

[@matthewmalpeli]

It's confirmation bias you fucking imbeciles

[@bijosn]

its nonsense...marx was right

[@carolr.556]

I actually think his analogy of giving up ones religion to giving up socialism is not correct..but much of this is a point that blows away the assumption that socialism "moral"..I do not have to abandon my faith to use common sense and reason when it comes to political , social or economic views..

[@johnstewart7025]

There is some logic to the idea that once socialists saw that class warfare was not going to win, that their efforts were then focused on other, related targets. In other words, if the communist utopia was supposed to eliminate patriarchy, racism, ableism etc., then perhaps those goals could be advanced on a separate track.

[@channeldoesnotexist]

You entirely missed the point. Original socialism had absolutely nothing to do with the woke social justice nonsense of today. It was framed strictly in terms of economic class struggle. That's it. The communist utopia was to make the distribution of wealth and assets fair and equitable to all instead of the exploitative relationship formed in capitalism between a wealthy ownership class that does as they please and makes all the rules and the poor that actually do all the work.

[@wolfsden6479]

Last part didnt address what you do if the logic and reason and your childhood belief match.

[@occultprophecies]

Socialism/communism is not only supposedly an economic theory. It can arguably be said it is more so a cultural/social theory. Just look at Western Europe today and how the socialists/communists are running things into the ground. Try telling them that Marxism is failing over there. Not only poverty, but social/cultural destruction is the goal. Marxism depends upon the rule of small elite who want to appear virtuous with their slogans as defenders of "the people" but who secretly look to exterminate them while in the process of collapse they gain more power to convince "the people" they do so to protect them.

[@alexs6250]

Yes! So creepy.whats their deal? Why would you want to destroy everything good? In the hope that you’ll be all powerful?

[@bademoxy]

the more you reduce your middle class into desperate and frightened subjects , the more you can take from them "for their own good", trading freedom for state dependency.

[@Whoisafraidofreality]

@9:15. How is facism probably coming back?!%?? I'd love to see reasoned evidence for this. What is his definition of facism? Cheers

[@JV-tg2ne]

Whoisafraidofreality - take a look ok at antifa and the progressives in the USA - it’s already here

[@timberrr1126]

Fascism is returning as State Capitalism-China.

[@TheJohnCooper]

Hick's is so much easier to digest than JBP.

[@davidford694]

I believe this is a vast oversimplification of the historical reality, and that it presents a false dichotomy between "faith" (undefined) and reason. Very thin.

[@snoosebaum995]

i have followed ART " all my life , thats not how i remember it , POMo came quite late began with 'appropriation ' ie richard prince

[@devinludwig]

socialism simply needs democracy to keep the powers checked and balanced. Unfortunately we've let the socialist policies and institutions erode by allowing big money interests to corrupt politics

[@STScott-qo4pw]

marx was an economic analysis. that was it. i think the beginnings of postmodernism first and foremost the blame lies damned near exclusively with the failed minds of french school of thought leading all the way back(wards) to ferdinand de saussure. foucault, lacan, derida are the chief contributors to academia's failure.

[@rchuso]

Let's end Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, and all similar programs and let the people get on with their lives. After all, family and community are presently largely ignored because the government is attempting to do their function.

[@wendellbabin6457]

I think SSI was ORIGINALLY supposed to be for widows pensions and orphans ONLY. But politicians, of ANY stripe, can NEVER resist a pile of money in a public trough with which to buy votes and peddle influence.

[@craxd1]

What is Marxism/Communism really? Marx stated that he was not a Marxist. The Communist League was their political party. Thus, the truth about Communism, which Marx alluded to, was very similar to an aristocracy, a regression. The Bourgeoisie (middle-class) would be extinguished, nobody would own property, everyone would be the same and be paid the same, but that is only for the Proletariate. The ruling aristocracy would be the ones to own property, practice crony capitalism, and they would have the wealth. Marx put himself in the ruling class, along with Engels, who was an aristocrat. Marx stated that the aristocracy was our "betters," he thought of himself as that, and that if the Communists would have taken over, then he would be in the driver's seat. This is very similar to what has happened in every communist country, especially with the crony capitalism of the Nomenklatura. That is the truth about socialism, and they have continued to lie to the people since that time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura .

[@Ronni3no2]

"Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship"

[@Ronni3no2]

@menckencynic That's it. That's the whole joke.

[@Ronni3no2]

@menckencynic I think you mean _liberal._ The comical choice of the name is not the source of my contempt.

[@Ronni3no2]

@menckencynic Luckily for me, there are erudites such as yourself all over, offering free information. I particularly enjoyed the fairy tale about the radicalized Marxian left-liberals of the West. You tell the story so nicely, I could almost hear the calls for the proleteriat to rise up and take over the workplaces. What happened to my contempt being petty? You couldn't go 10 minutes without contradicting yourself?

[@rchuso]

Nice.

[@dandales9003]

When the horse starts smelling bad and is covered with flies it might be a good idea to stop beating it.

[@leascaart]

NO!! Why does it end like this!!!

[@jasondashney]

The whole speech. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3Oqk3t9a5irbtk

[@redgey5163]

Just bought his book on Amazon. Time to go DEEEEEEEP!

[@georgegraham6069]

"How Marxism Led to Post Modernism." I was hoping to be educated but alas no. Perhaps I am not all that bright.

[@stanleysmythe4637]

The logical argument for a metaphysical necessity to precede the material world which cannot create itself is a reasoned argument. The then argued necessity for a ubiquitous, universal moral law follows. These two arguments provide rational explanations for Jewish and Christian epistemology. The Orthodox Jews argue rationally for a divine source of Torah given the 3 million Sinai witness around 1300 BCE. The Traditional Christian argument in support of this Jewish position is that more than 500 people and the eleven Disciples witnessed Jesus’ resurrection. The Apostle Paul based his entire theology on the literal, bodily resurrection. These are rational arguments with forensic proof. By faith, believers accept the historical witness as the the Christians access the metaphysical Holy Spirit in a real transformation of the self. We live in both a metaphysical and a physical reality. The Postmodernists are subjectivists living in a fantasy ideology.

[@MarkushaX]

How anything can be postmodern, if modern is always on the edge? How the 20th century concept can be past 21st century modernity?

[@Lehmann108]

It is post modern in that modernism assumes a reality independent of language. Postmodernism asserts there is no "underlying" reality outside of language. There is only the language.

[@MarkushaX]

Thank you very much for explanation, but I was not having a problem with concept itself, but rather just with the name of it. ))

[@soundpalette2438]

Wait, are you implying that is what the post-modernist are doing, or are they reveling that this could be the case currently?

[@ChokeArtist411]

Welp, hicks was clearly wrong about the middle class getting bigger, it's actually gotten smaller.

[@ixcxe6663]

Marx's prediction about Capitalism never took into account a few MAJOR factors. Capitalism is personal choice, property and labor protected by LAW (even against the designs and machinations of government). America and its laws aren't based on Capitalism because... 1) America and its laws ARE Capitalism... the ONLY nation on earth to have that spelled out explicitly in its founding documents. 2) The currency and primary motivator of Capitalism is NOT money, greed, or profit for the sake of profit. That shit is Anti-Capitalist, except the currency part... which isn't even necessary. 3) Crimes and Dishonesty (ripping people off, lying, slander, theft, rape, plagiarism, etc. are ILLEGAL and damages can be sought through lawful methods) because that shit HURTS Capitalism AND our law abiding fellow citizens. 4) Our system OF Government IS NOT our GOVERNMENT OFFICES or structure. America is a CIVIL AUTHORITY that LENDS its power in a limited manner to fellow citizens who represent and WORK FOR our interests on local and national levels from TEMPORARY and RETRACTABLE positions of Varying Authoritative Measure... none of which have absolute authority over ANYTHING. Thus we have no Sovereign Leaders or management, and our government doesn't even own any property. ALL government properties are designated FOR GOVERNMENT USE, not owned by it (unless someone really fucked up and needs a good ass kicking). Our system IS Capitalism.. the CIVIL CONTRACT and BODY of LAW that supports our CIVIL UNION as a National body of PEERS. The part of our Declaration that states "endowed by their creator" denotes ALL humans as individually Sovereign siblings of DIVINE ORIGIN... and without stepping on the toes of anyone's particular beliefs... even secular types because their "creator" can be defined as their parents and ancestors of biological origin. MIND-BLOWING, HUH? Our CIVIL CONTRACT is what makes a person American... the agreement to respect our laws and traditions and treat one another with all due respect... so if it isn't earned it does not exist. Each of us are charged to maintain our vigil against TYRANNY by respecting one another's RIGHTS and the exercise thereof... that doesn't mean we have to like them or what they do. And so long as they break no laws we have their back, as each of us are doing as well "quid pro quo" to guarantee our own rights of pursuit and expression. Currencies, ideas, materials, resources, land, art, companionship, games, time, etc... that are exchanged with other people are simply commodities & venues of exchange. Under Capitalism trade/exchange cannot be mandated or decided by others in any way, because it is an ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY and IMMEDIATELY INTERACTIVE process. Either party can change their mind, alter the value of services and goods at stake, or consider other offers IN THE MOMENT and completely independent of input from anyone else. It is a PRIVATE EXCHANGE with no steadfast rules other than giving away and receiving value. Both parties give up something they value LESS than the goods or service they will receive... otherwise there would be no reason to part with what you already have and conclude the transaction. This makes the formative process of Capitalism a SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP... and the more each party is willing to ensure that the other party is fairly treated and/or happy with the result... the more TRUST that is EARNED between them. This leads to the formation of markets... which are simply chains of people and/or groups communicating and conducting their own exchanges of wanted and/or needed things. MEGA-POINTS !!! Here's the KICKERS that Marx simply could not grasp... #1) The ACTUAL CURRENCY of Capitalism is Earned Trust, those other things are simply choices we are all free to make, (or not). #2) EVERYTHING a person can do under Communism/Socialism can be done under Capitalism... they actually thrive under it because... IN AMERICA... so long as you CAUSE NO HARM (break no laws or abridge the freedoms of others) our Private Sector can support practically every Socialist/Communist ideal (unions, ashrams, temples, co-ops, whatevs). #3) THE "almost everything" and "practically" comments above about Socialism and Communism are due to the VOLUNTARY NATURE of Capitalism and our Constitution specifically stating that NO OTHER FORM OF LAW or GOVERNMENT can or will be recognized or instituted within our borders, for doing so is Sedition/Treason and a Capitol Offense. #4) STATE Socialism and Communism rely on application of Military/Government threat or use of force to COMPEL COMPLIANCE... so our founding fathers designed our framework to allow for INDIVIDUAL COLLECTIVISM in the PRIVATE SECTOR... where all things are VOLUNTARY and cannot be FORCED upon the unwilling. In other words... simply use your own stuff and network peacefully, because you can't take shit that isn't yours or coerce participation (CONSENT is REQUIRED). If you then want to create a Utopian City or Society, NO ONE will stop you or even give a shit! Because we all want to improve what we already have... and when you succeed or fail we can all finally have (yet more proof) that America (Capitalism) Rocks!!! #5) Marx was a leftist TWAT who failed to notice that America isn't Authoritarian or resistant to change (or at least, it wasn't designed to be)... and until corrupt dicks like Obama, the Clinton Gang, their mentors, and their cronies messed things up it worked awesome. NOTE: RINOs, Democrats, Feminists, etc. are all simply FASCISTS (the definition of Fascism is STATE controlled Capitalism). They all seek to use GOVERNMENT POWER and/or resources to force compliance over private businesses, citizens, property, labor, choices, and our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Obamacare mandated state control over private industry and FORCED a product as well as a fine for NON-COMPLIANCE (the individual mandate) on ALL of us. Senator Warren's bill to nationalize private companies is the same. BOTH are TEXTBOOK FASCISM... Read about Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini if ya don't believe me... That shit is Fascism... PURE FACT, not Conjecture. #6) America is a CAPITALIST REPUBLIC with Democratic PROCESS (voting), NOT a democracy... Democracy IS another word for Socialism (Majority/STATE Rule OVER the Private Sector). Our Republic IS our Private Sector (our fellow citizens), and WE govern OVER our STATE. NOTE: MAJOR MIND BLOW!!!! The word anarchy, when broken down to its root (Actual) meaning, has NOTHING to do with nihilism, mobocracy, bedlam, etc. It comes from the greek words "an" which means without, and "archon or archos" which means master, and/or leader. Anarchy LITERALLY means "without masters or leaders", and was used to describe tribes and/or cultures with no clearly defined or (or simply misunderstood) social structures. America has no masters or leaders, for those are SOVEREIGN TITLES... and the word Sovereignty denotes divine aspect as well as earthly power/right to rule. In America ALL citizens are sovereign, and our CIVIL AUTHORITY is recognized on an international level as a PRIMARY and UNIQUE NATION (though most, if not all nations, are as well to some degree, LOL). READY for IT??? By definition and format America IS an ANARCHY... want proof? Our founders fought for independence FROM tyranny (sovereign and/or foreign rule OVER their individual persons and properties). And as previously stated in # 1 thru 6, America has no leaders... only temporary titles of office. A ruler or leader has 3 distinct powers... making rules, dictating them, and enforcing them over others for whatever duration they deem fit (usually life, of course). In America we have 3 branches for that stuff and temporarily assigned persons in numerous office to fill them, each of which has limited bits of said power within their similarly limited purview... but no single person or group of them holds the full power of a sovereign or leader (even all of them combined), because ALL of said power is CONDITIONALLY BORROWED from the CIVIL AUTHORITY who can shit-can the lot as they deem necessary WITHOUT NEED NOR REASON. Though Corruption/Tyranny is the listed probable and justifiable cause. I'm a Conservative: one who approaches change with Caution (not fear) so as to protect traditions, resources, beliefs, and structures of PROVEN MERIT. Like America, Capitalism, History, Archaeology, Science, Classic Liberalism, Music, Art, etc.... NOT Feminism or any other COERCED "progressive" or postmodernist BULLSHIT. Liberals are clearly defined as: persons who seek and/or push for change and are willing to discard existing beliefs/traditions to enable it (along with the rights, opinions, and/or property of those who disagree). They are the "leap without looking" types (aka logically inept and/or impaired). We also call them Thieves and Liars... but only because those are CLINICALLY ACCURATE descriptors. I'm also an Anarchist: a sovereign individual with no master other than himself and/or his creator (a personal relationship that's NO ONE else's BUSINESS unless I deem otherwise). And the default human condition in the absence of a Sovereign or Leader IS NOT CHAOS, you ignorant TWATS!! That bit was directed to the "erudite" academics and Statist CUNTS who keep pushing said narrative to indoctrinated SHEEPLES, and to instill fear (control) over others by censoring the TRUTH. The ACTUAL default condition of no leaders or rulers is FAMILY, TRADITION, and COMMUNITY. When systems and leaders are destroyed shit gets crazy, YES, but it is our loved ones and traditions that see us through all of that BULLSHIT... and whatever comes next. Shit topples...but the tribes and clans of the earth persevere. Conservative Anarchy KICKS ASS!!! Just ask our Founding Fathers... or JESUS, if you ever meet them. And we're all rather dashingly fun (cavalier) in our own right... and handsome, like myself. But the ladies are simply MEGA-BEAUTIFUL. HuGGz

[@craiglane1089]

Bloke sounds a bit like Matthew McConaughey

[@bighugejake]

8:00 - 8:20 Uhhh, Russia?

[@lucius02]

Philosphyinsights Sr. would you enable the "add subtitles" feature in order to contribute with spanish subtitles on this video? I'll gladly work on them for such a valuable lecture.

[@Ricazur]

Where does this man find his Data ? In wich parallel world does he lives ?

[@davidhawley1132]

Apparently it is 'evidence without emotional committments land'. I can't find it on a map, more's the pity.

[@Ricazur]

The Data, wich he use to demostrate his arguments, is just not accurate. By the way, he never mention it directly, only indirectly.

[@grahamsouthern5583]

This should be shown in every school in the Western world.

[@chilesauce7248]

And this. Lecture from 1983 where x kgb guy tells how it is done. m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5jRoXanqL14bsk

[@Ken19700]

My new favorite youtube channel.

[@stephenmoss877]

In the first 5 minutes and 30 seconds he reviews exactly what is happening in the real world !

[@bijosn]

i am in south africa...we have the highest levels of inequality. the middle class initially increased but is decreasing. the working class\prolieteriat is increasing, unemployment is increasing. the middle class will dwindle with job losses and emigration, the rich will decrease. in the end we will have a few rich and a very large proliterat.

[@chilesauce7248]

Explained by an x kgb guy in 1983, few listened, here is is lecture. Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society (Complete) m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5jRoXanqL14bsk

[@rogeralsop3479]

You won't see or hear this man on the BBC.

[@abucs]

Fascism was of the far Left. The start of the second world war was when the three self proclaimed socialist countries (working together) started invading neighbouring countries. These were the Germans, Russians and Italians. It is only because Socialist Germany betrayed and invaded socialist Russia that we don't admit WW2 was basically begun with socialist war mongering. Because the Fascist Socialists were defeated and the Bolshevik Socialists fought on the Allies winning side we are taught not think of Hitler's National Socialists as socialists. In the same way today we say the Jihadist Muslims fighting against us are not really Muslims at all. It is a propaganda.

[@abucs]

Yes but Socialism requires authoritarianism in that it takes power unto itself and has to block other power structures from emerging. The Soviet Union of course is the prime example (Gulag Archipeligo) but so was Mussolini's left wing Fascista Party - "All within the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state". Authoritarianism is a left wing characteristic even if people are taught to think of this authoritarianism as being in the support of a greater good (which they all do).

[@williamgeorge8308]

Find Economist Steve Keen. He has read everything Marx wrote on Economics. Just to a search in KZbin .... you will find someone who knows what he is talking about.

[@joesiegfried7465]

As soon as i heard "the middle class is getting bigger" i knew he was full of it. How do we define "middle class?" They are up to their eyeballs in debt, that's how.

[@skywalkerneoblade]

Thanks PhilosophyInsights. Quality content as always

[@BEforSirius]

...Right?

[@mysteriousjungalist]

The Third Way

[@smedlydumpsterjuice8875]

That was awesome!

[@thaliagarcia9684]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY

[@Open4991]

I'd like to see some data actually proving what Hicks says at 5:00 or so.The middle class in 2018 is clearly shrinking and the super rich are pulling away from everyone else at faster speeds. It's true that Americans earn more in raw numbers than they did a century ago, but the cost of living is so much greater now than it was then that the category of 'poverty' would have to be changed, in absolute terms, to reflect these economic changes. I'd nevertheless agree with Hicks that socialists have failed to provide a real alternative to capitalism, and that wealth redistribution hasn't been proven to reverse poverty rates.

[@davidhawley1132]

The change seems to have happened around the 50s, where his analysis conveniently stops. How rational of him to do so, but hardly impartial.

[@squarejr.4314]

Open4991 what? Do you think that every one needs to be “super rich”? Are you a child? Maybe you could be a super something else! What is it with you people to think that everyone can be super at everything? How about a super artist or musician, or golfer? Good grief, get your sh XX together and aim at something that gives your life meaning. You can do that in the USA now more than ever thanks to the super rich Bill Gates and Steve Jobs! Count your lucky stars instead of other people’s pocketbooks!

[@Open4991]

E Pruden Can you maybe slow down a minute and consider that I'm not a Marxist? I said as much in my very first post. It doesn't bother me on a personal level that other people are richer than I am, and I'm pretty okay with where my life is, really. Like Jordan Peterson says, however: massive income disparities create chaos for a society, and that's really my concern, here. I want to create a safe, stable, healthy society, and I'm interested to see if there are ways of doing that that haven't been tried recently. I should point out to you that we had higher employment rates before Microsoft existed than we do today, so I'm not seeing how I owe Bill Gates much of anything, other than fees for a renewal of my office suite subscription.

[@Sorain1]

I'd say that a solid argument can be made that the situation at hand came into being as things went towards the very structures and policies that claim capitalism would cause this. As they gained in power and popularity, as their policy shifts were implemented, we get the shifts they predicted. Odd points of data that. My view of it is, take Capitolism as your base, apply the minimum level of social programs needed and maintain a government that both can and will intercede to keep opportunities to get into the economy open and keep corporate power levels in check. The people and corporations will be more than capable of keeping government power in check as it stands. I would wager that a lack of government regulation on corporate power aimed specifically at keeping opportunities open rather then curtailing behavior is at least part of what is going awry here. Social programs have value only in their ability to increase the number of productive law abiding citizens per capita. Everything else is self destructive. Government regulation and intervention on the market only has value if it maintains competition. (Ergo if the banks have fucked up, you do not bail them out. If you feel compelled to do so? Not without massively shackling the kind of behavior that got them into this mess as the price they pay for this failure.) On occasion you will have economic bubbles and letting the air out of them is another function that on occasion the government (or preferably an open, honest new media focused on reporting the facts and informing the public!) must do. I don't want a handout, I want access to competitive education, training and the chance to make a living wage. Every time a government program fills in for a problem, the root isn't addressed. Bailing water out of a boat only works for so long if you don't find the leak before it widens.

[@ThermicLight]

I really don't think apples are being compared with apples when compared to what people had to endure and cope with in the past relative to today. Namely as people are so privileged today they take so many things as a given or granted. From food to basic sanitation. That people used to need to fix things in the past because unlike today they couldn't hope to afford a new product than compared to what is offered today. That every night, especially during the weekend, young adults are spending stupid amounts of money on booze. This doesn't suggest to me as a society we are struggling. Though some arguments can be made I more usually notice that peoples circumstances are based on poor life choices. That this to me doesn't appear a problem of the economy than compared to short sightedness. Not something I really care to nanny for. That you make your own bed in life.

[@matthewreed2614]

maybe too much oversimplification of marxist analysis for ww1 and ww2, considering the huge difference between trotsky, stalin and mao…. but point taken

[@TwinShadowX]

There are two issues with this at least from this clip. He doesn't talk about in 1950 why people were doing so well economically. strong unions, living wages, pension plans for retirement, and good health care. Which is more along the lines of socialism and not capitalism. the second issue is in 1970 in West companies started to leave to go to poorer counties for cheap labor leaving a lot of people out of work. Unions were weakening, wage growth stopped, pension plans no more, and health care was rising. Capitalism at it's finest.

[@TheHistoryguy10]

It took a lot more than Marxism to produce the post-modern view of the world. Karl Marx was only a small part in the transition to post-modernism. This man needs to widen his perspective a bit, quite a bit actually.

[@myroseaccount]

Are there any problems with Capitalism?