Відео

Inclusiveness is a big deal.

Justice, one hundred percent, Blessed Be.

what,s more important PRIMARY IMPRINTING OR SECONDARY SOCIALISATION

Not to be a social climate change denier but how do you compare the depression rates between now and medieval times when the numbers you're using for comparison only go back to the 1950s? That seems like a *lot* of extrapolation.

You are saying the professor must have a POV relative to his subject.That is a witless and even ignorant position. The truth itself is multifaceted, ergo no person is perfect. If McKenna won’t adhere to his teaching is not a measure of the teaching. Don’t say that anymore.

Thanks a lot for your nice videos on all the subjects. 😍😍😍

Ouch the recording is horrible

Marx was an exceedingly delusional ultraviolent psychopathic narcissist who, like his hero Mephistopheles, essentially wanted to destroy the world... His favorite line from Goethe's Faust was "Everything that exists deserves to perish". And like every other die hard socialist I have ever known, he was utterly economically illiterate. If you want to study real economics, research Austrian school laissez faire market capitalism, and then you will get some idea about exactly how delusional he truly was.

Thank you for putting into words what I have long been uncomfortable with about JP. I too find his “make your bed” ideas sage advice, but the oversimplification of complex philosophy to promote FUD to be concerning. Brilliant job unpacking this with empathy and depth!

Genuinely the best YY video on the subject. Thank you so much. I will remember you

Buddhism is not religion nor philosophy. It is science.

How is Peterson tyrannical? Except looking at his tweets, have you been following up with his latest content and the new books he has been working on? I agree he is deserving of much criticism, but putting asside the surface assessment of his suits and lucrative endeavors, he still is providing much needed content and insight and I appreciate his deep dive into christianity.

alot of things you left out, Such as by the age of say 50 yrs,, if one has not begun work w his Unconscious,, its doubtful he will make any develeopments in his inner man. By the age of 60 its too late, a man at 60 will become swallowed by the collective spirit and lose his way to the paths in the unconscious, Witness Judas who turned on Yeshau,, He did ZERO inner work in his 28 yrs od life. WE live in very dangerous times, Inner work has to begin at age 25. If not the shadow has grown so big at age 60 ones life has been all shadow. = Just best keep kicking the can down the road.

In the middle of reading some of Erich Neumann’s work. His insight into the Ouroboros archetype and the struggle to burst free from the pleromatic forces of the Great Mother have had me thinking about the great fight of life-the struggle for consciousness. We have to kick back against regressing into a state without pleasure and pain lest we lose ourselves. This is clearly depicted in the Last Man. There’s an interesting storyline in the Scavengers Reign animation on Max right now that really embodies the matter too.

Yes and no. It's true he considered communism to be a definitively post-industrial idea, and therefore something which grew out of and transcended capitalism's material advances, but that's a bit different from him viewing communism as an extension of capitalism, or "loving" capitalism in your terms - for him capitalism was still fundamentally exploitative and therefore a basic threat to human freedom, which was generally his main priority. (We are talking, after all, about the thinker responsible for the best known expression of the labour theory of value and the idea of industrial alienation). Note also that "communism" isn't a Marxist term in origin as implied here - there was already a fully-formed communist movement by the time he became influential. Anyway none of this is to say that this isn't effective rhetoric for getting people interested in him (frankly I don't know whether it is or not, but if it is that's definitely a good thing). Likewise we of course don't need to follow Marx blindly. Bookchin's ideas are, I think, much more relevant and applicable to our contemporary context so for those not already familiar with him, look him up.

How about this. Yes, we are all living in a simulation. A simulation each of us creates in our mind. You could say that the mind is a best guess generator, the result being what we perceive from second to second. Cues from the present are melded together with experience from the past, that is the simulation input. Also what we are looking for in a situation also has its effects. My guess is that there is some slight variance between people in this process.

Postmodernism is the owner of babble

What else is there in reality besides what’s inside of you and what’s outside of you lol. This is just an examples of intersecting two true dichotomies.

What was supposed to be freeing for them has become a faith in itself. A stage a level, has anyone reached beyond such a state that govern our lives. Now its psychological warfare with ideological warfare. What you think FRE U ed

In reading Marx i've found a lot of quotes and ideas that would sound really strange to people who both claim to love or hate him today, in which some of them you mention here. I'm not a marxist whatsoever but it's always interesting to try to understand these things, as far away as possible from the typical partisan politics discussions.

In short, he as Jordan Peterson.

“The idiocy of rural life” jeesh, i dident know that Carl Marx hated rural life so much, there is nothing wrong With rural life! Or that he thought of primitive hunter-gatherers and other nomadiske pepole so much, wich i assume hïs WHO’s he calls “barbarienˋs and semi-barbarienˋs”! But he was still a man of his time, after all! And of his country! I belive that dialetical materialisme, and all dialectisisim for that matter, and thus marxisme itself, and all of its offshoots, wrong! I belive that the anarchist are rhigt!

i've never been comfortable with Socialism's focus on production and industry and wealth, now i know how those philosophies became cornerstones.

This is why as a socialist I don't use the term "anti-capitalism" but prefer "post-capitalism" to describe my politics, it opens up the question "ok here's where we are, where shall we go from here?" Also a note on the Russian revolution, while the country wasn't fully industrialised with a relatively small working class, the Soviets and Bolsheviks were kinda banking on the revolution spreading to more industrially developed nations like Germany & Britain pretty sharpish; the fact that this failed to happen left Russia isolated in a hostile world, with a decimated working class, & an underdeveloped industrial capacity which they needed to upgrade desparately to survive. We can see how such conditions can give rise to the Stalinist fuckery & distortion of the ideas of socialism to come.

that one regular car reviews episode really prepared me for this

Pretty reductive use of true fragments. Elisabeth Förster would’ve been proud

9:45 not with difficulty- with impossibility. Minnerva’s owl flies only at dusk

6:20 that doesnt sound like having no bitterness. That sounds like Nietzsche realizing that suffering can be necessary to achieve greatness.

Motherfucking dialectics. The transcendence of binary thought, beyond good and evil.

It is funny how being pro capitalism was being a leftist.

Marx was a Neo-Lib!

Nice video, showed me another side of this guy

To me marxists are so morally weird. They denounce all the horrible things of capitalism like the primitive accumulation. But then, in the name of historical necessity and dialectics, they see it as a good thing. "It may be morally wrong but its a progress of productive forces". Or they chose the positivist value free position. In any case, its ethically questionnable. Using reason to justify unethical behaviour does not seem just to me.

The next economic system will be brought about by AI. Those who wish to participate can profit through capital alone, as the selling of human labor will no longer be an option. Those who do not wish to participate will have UBI. We shall call this revolutionary new system… “Also Capitalism.”

Best to check before throwing labels around…

communism is absence of private property, which is default state of nature. the first 95% of human existence was communist and sustainable (hunter/gathering)

Ordinary reality is ultimate reality. There is nothing beyond it, at least nothing that can come into contact with us. Our understanding of the world does not come from passive observing plus reasoning, it instead comes from an active interaction and engagement with the world. This perhaps means that the worldly has a far better understanding of ultimate reality then the ascetics with his Hinterwelt.

Capitalism creates by it's own logic authoritarian socialism by collectivizing labor for it's own profit. That is why the bourgeois creates the proletariat. Once everything is collectivized this way, then it's only a matter of time that the proletariat realizes he does not need the bourgeois anymore. That's basically the main idea. It's not just about technology, but the anti-thesis(proletariat) is created by the these (bourgeois). The transcendence is that everybody works and get all the profits from it, so now everybody is both proletariat and bourgeois under communism the way he saw it. That being said, it's unclear if he truly believed that. He wrote somewhere he created that scheme to encourage the people in Germany to replace the monarchy by a democracy and it's why he created this proletariat idea as well as communism. It's what he said early on, maybe he ended up believing it, but at first it was just a rhetorical tool.

Great video, there is alot of misconceptions about the general concepts of Marxism floating about, kudos for setting the record straight.

I was thinking about how a lot of so called Capitalists sounds a lot like Marx lately. Materialism should be much more considered when labeling societies.

Trying to predict the future by looking at the past will always suffer from hindsight bias. It is a view that is fundamentally unable to foresee innovations because it is always looking in the wrong direction, and because innovation is central to the development of our societies (compare today with 15 years ago), it will always fail in its predictions.

Most people talk about Marx without reading his actual work and by listening to people that didn't bother to read him and decided hate on him anyway because Soviet Union had free health care.

Marx's first victims where his children, brutal.

Another reason not to take too seriously the ideologies and philosophies of these “thinkers” You only have to look at old footage of communist countries to know how sick an ideology it is

To me Capitalism vs Socialism as a scale always seems to miss the point. The same with saying one system succeeds the other. All systems have a population, and the social dymanics have a massive effect on who the functionaries are in any given society. Those functionaries have selfish and selfless behaviours or habits. The system is only as good as the functionaries and the direction given. Effectively we are doomed to benign mediocrety or malevalent execution of policy. Note at times we will slowly move through changes in direction gradually adjusting course in multiple areas, or have a huge revolution before eventually losing impetus.

Marxism is theft with an advertising budget.

Sounds a bit like left accelerationism

this is the most paradoxical video title

what sustained Marx at this time was his wife. She worked her ass off while her unemployed husband begged Engels for money

❤❤❤