วีดีโอ

All of you talked about dictatorship vs. democracy and not a single one asked what they have in common. A christian hermit in the 5th century or a trapper of the 19th century didn't cared about freedom. All this talk is anchored in the propaganda narratives of the American society. Instead being lazy by quoting VIPS, think for yourself is the better idea.

This always happen when I finally see the faces of my favorite podcasters but none of you look like how I imagined you look lol

Sartre and MP completely different conditions of freedom.

If there was an initial order to the universe wouldnt you expect there to be more variety as time moves on, toward disorder? In regard to entropy. Wouldnt you expect to see more variety? Why would it tend to homogeny?

The question "are humans still free?" is rhetorical, no? I think what should've followed from this question is a constructive philosophy on human freedom, a notion that is still universal and applicable to everyone to sustain a cosmopolitan project (or maybe not, depending on how you'd like to go about the argument). Even the pervasive sense that we are not free is not unfreedom in itself, but a necessary negativity to realize a project. We have to pose and posture that we are unfree, we have to be ontologically built to be incapable of seeing anything else about our situation as being unfree in order to realize this project (of probably universal freedom) to its fullest extent, even if it contradictory means dooming ourselves to a real living experience of constraints. Not too different from Victor's account, really. I'm sure this is too humanistic and anthropocentric for you guys' taste but I don't see what else to do here. If we don't care about this then "human" is already free, has always been free, doomed to be free, powerful to be free, and what else have you. Point is, we are free and there's no question to be asked. I feel like Erik wanted to go in this direction in his examination of the sensibility of freedom within cosmology/metaphysics framing, but it didn't really get going.

What the fuck. Victor. First time seeing Victor and I guess my imaginary picture of him, based on his voice, was way off and now that I've seen him I can't hear him anymore in the way that I did. His voice hasn't changed, but it's not the same.

Victor - freedom is contextual. Within the confines of certain limitations one can become free or rather, freedom is becoming free. The argument is deterministic in its nature because it allows for individuals to logically go through a process to become something else. Victor's definition is important because it determines that one's freedom to say what they want can also be socially influenced introducing a dimension which was sort of diminished throughout the conversation albeit a solid point. Erik - freedom is the tendency towards order. The problem here is Erik inserts the idea of free will when moving from theory to application but Erik is onto something when accidentally suggesting "freedom is arbitrary." Erik's idea is great because it tends towards the making of a new order of things, perhaps better or more complete, while incorporating the idea that humans still must abide by determinism. Pills - freedom is a floating signifier. It is meaningful only within the context of how it is used. And I think this where the crux of the matter lies that the framing of the totems as a unifying principle was misframed because it isn't just that everyone wants to be free politically but everyone wants to act freely within the context of their social groups. This is an important distinction as it implies "liberty" is more important than "freedom" which is what I think all the speakers were hinting at and secretly debating the entire time. Liberty here would be to be allowed to exist in society without the bad consequences that existing near other people could imply. We (as humans in a society) don't want to think of ourselves as politicized subjects of a state whose words can be used against us to curtail our freedom to do what we want to do yet we have to accept that regardless of our beliefs, feelings, actions, we must still exist in spite of these limitations. Perhaps expanding upon how we would feel if we'd do what we'd like when we wanted to like (*within reason*) is the thing that will sort of provide the proper enclosure for the argument. And I have to stress within reason because curtailing others' freedoms is what often triggers that reactionary bent towards actually changing things.

10th

Musk is openly courting the far in Europe, and you’re boiling the salute down to achieving a specific reaction in certain parts of the public sphere that can be dismissed as a case of calling everything fascistic?

Maybe freedom is "The limits of absence"?

I am not sure why "freedom fries" has to be taken into account for meaning of "freedom". Isn't it more an instance of a dedication to the totem deity, that, just because of the situation at the time, happened to be renaming of a common meal? IMO two centuries ago in Europe, it would be renamed to "Emperor's fries", eight centuries ago to "Saint 'random name' fries". In any of these two cases there would be no real connection to the respective namesake.

Hmm, Eric's definition seems to me mainly as a rejection of determinism on the basis of really existing differences that determinism can't explain. So when there is potentiality, does it mean that there is also freedom? I don't think his argument sheds light on the process of realizing difference - that is, the freedom,if there is any - but only the recognition of the existence of these differences. Am I missing the point? Is freedom in his sense just chance to change?

Long time listener of the pod, first time seeing Victors face and wth you did not match the image i had in my head of how you would look. Amazing work as always guys!

Guys can you do an episode on the work of Ernesto Laclau

Great pod

peak theorizing

About the discussion on separating the artist from the art is in itself not a big problem to me. I would say that the danger of making someone with abhorrent views in any aspect, even if they contributed to some good, more popular is taking a big risk in trusting that other people will reach the same wise conclusions that you are. Normalization is one hell of a phenomenon.

I think whta Diegos meant that ideology is emergent property of the structure and superstructure.16:45

Diego is the man!!! He enjoyed educating these guys! We need many more people like you, Diego!!! We need to help people to open their eyes away from the deed indoctrination they suffered without even noticing.

Problem with Wittgenstein is you can’t just start philosophy with him cause you got to have an idea of the WHOLE tradition before him to recognize his impact. Not a good point to start with. But a banger for sure.

Good vid 👍

Good one 👍

I just bought the book and I like it so far!

First, on the topic of television in the 1960s, and the belief that it wasn’t that prevalent… from Wikipedia: “During the 1950s, television was the primary medium for influencing public opinion.[1] In the mid-1960s, color broadcasting was introduced in the U.S. and most other developed countries.” Walter Cronkite took over the evening news in 1962. Second, the point of using the systems of representation to undermine the dominant ideology is going to be based on the systems of communication at the time. For the purposes of these texts it most certainly would have been television, for us it would be “the internet” or “social media.” Capitalism produces the tools for its own destruction and it is our work to liberate those tools. A fantastic example of how those systems were “hijacked” by “art” is Luigi. He completely dominated the entirety of “the internet” and “social media” without anyone having to buy a single advertisement. That’s not to say that his actions should be reproduced to facilitate the process of de-colonization, but the response to his actions demonstrate a mechanism that most certainly needs to be examined.

Why don’t you guys debate haz?

it's so obviously naive to think there was a break where meaning started

Started watching you guys after ruzzarins podcasts , love the content thank you for makingme think differently

Excellent. ❤

Good vid 👍

swag likeohio.

Honestly the biggest problems for Marxism/Communism are not Economical but are Psycho-social. You should collab with TheoryUnderground or PhilosophyPortal!

Paul Reitter seems like a well-balanced nice guy. I'm going to get the book. I will miss the ring of "This integument is burst asunder. ... The expropriators are expropriated." But yeah, "integument" is probably not the best word

sold! going to buy it now on amazon (the irony!) the revolution is coming again, this time thanks to youtube, instagram, tiktok and rednote ❤

First time listening and I'm so glad i found this pod. I can't wait to read this new translation. I have a difficult relationship with Marx for a lot of different reasons, I suspect partly because I'm not an intellectual or an academic. If you asked me in college I would have said I'm a communist. At 24, a socialist. And then I explored a lot of other political ideologies and tried my best to take the ideas seriously, I read all the best work I could find. Today at 32 with a career and family I just use the label "leftist". I started getting a little cynical about people who refer to themselves as Marxists or Communists in modern day USA. But I'm trying to get rid of that and look at the ideas more seriously now. I read Capital in college and then reread it at the end of 2024. In hindsight, I'm not sure I actually understood it the first time I read it. Was wayyy undereducated at that time so I had no knowledge of history or theories to push back on it. I'm eager to get this new translation

ausgezeichnet. Hope to read Reitter's translation of V2 & V3, perhaps also Grundrisse.

3 screens is great. The ability to turn one of them off when a fellow ADDer is squirming with excitement ... would be better. Sorry bro but I do understand😂

Hegelianism is not scientific, therefore Marxism is not scientific.

Even though I’m an evil tankie, I still very much appreciate this academic non-sectarian approach to Capital. I think the first chapters really are the most interesting.

How would you apply Marx’s theory of value and the labor theory of surplus value to something like cryptocurrency or NFTs?

Excellent interview and discussion. I'm absolutely interested in obtaining this new translation. Thank you for the video.

How does marxism becomes critical theory? 🥸

I love this I love this to much

I want to become weakling liberal marxist, how do I do it?

a small point and I assume he didn't do this, but for the love of god can we get a translation of capital where the prices are given in a decimalized currency? like it's literally the most annoying thing in the world that because of the insane historic contingency that the most advanced economy on earth at the time of marx's writing happened to have the most caveman ass system of currency i have to figure out what £/s/d means like i'm reading harry potter

Any plans to translate volumes 2 and 3?

1:10 You need to go* over this whole section again. *Edit 60:10 sorry 😞

I’ve always thought it was weird when people call themselves Marxists. Was happy to see his hesitation to this question. I think his work will reach a wider audience by not adopting the label.

Pills you’ve got to be joking about Hillbilly Elegy…right?

Yasssssssssss

ugh, got an ad an hour in