วีดีโอ

I was thinking in the first part that feudalism was micro management of the peasants and quite strict but then I realised how different power structure the nobles presented with their estates to common people. They actually brought disciplinary power to the peasants. This is why king was loved and nobles were hated.

Dreams (Мечты): th-cam.com/video/KKHvuWBa7IE/w-d-xo.html Night unleashes snow Empty city, we are alone Alone, like light through windows Like beating hearts, ice melting I want to do it for tomorrow In thick swirling winds Close to time pulsating Beyond beyond and nothing else Raise your eyes horizons To the stars, to the heavens Alone there, the whole someone else Comet soaring, we are alone I want to do it in this darkness Look at the heavens and be forever Part of the dream, dreaming from the dream The feelings of the eternal call May you, yours, and everyone in your paths always have blessed dreams!

There is many internesting symbols in art coming from totalitarian society. Cryptography to the subconscious.

Omg Red Flood referenc!?!?!??!?111!!!

How did was confession process conducted during the Brezhnev years?

Integrating a superposition of all existing positions into your state action is well and good but the foregone conclusion of communism as a historical necessity is really a non-starter.

Did you intentionally time it to end at 19:17? Great detail!

the opposite of a small truth is false the opposite of a Big Truth is also True

They should've known, when they couldn't even put colors together ina painting, things look goofy from the start 😂

Surprised you didn't mention Posadism.

Liberals😭

Ironically, by the 70s Soviet movies advertised American products to their citizens

No idea why I was recommended this but thoroughly enjoyed it

Wonderful videos full of aesthetic awe and historical shock. Greetings from sunny Georgia(Stalin's homeland) and whish you good luck my brother in consciousness. XD <3

Great video, thank you

17:01 the irony

Love your videos dude. 🔥

Dialectical materialism is science, explaining that human beings function according to the pressures and influences of matter. Soviet Union is a perfect example of it - matter moving from one state to another. Contradictions built up and exploded into a revolution; but later, as capitalist market economy began to destabilise the soviet economy, as less soviets were forgetting about the Marxist-Leninist theory, as the party began to split from the general population and as bourgeois elements pursued their capitalist interests (along with other factors), the Soviet Union was no longer needed. The dissolution was according to Marxism. It reached highest form or social matter and then plunged into regression, back to capitalism.

How to think like a Soviet Step 1: don’t Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk

The death of Bukharin is tragic

Transhumanism and Singularianism is the western non-communist sequel to this. (but hopefully without all of this genocidal purging of so called inferior beings!).

You're not paying actual attention to the sources. Your only actual source is Boris Groys, it seems. This is totally unscientific history of ideas, what he says is really only applicable to a certain _usage_ of dialectics by State power in soviet countries. It doesn't grasp what dialectics was for Marx or Hegel, which was, really, a disjointed series of principles abstracted or distorted from Hegel which are only unified by their counter-intuitive and very general character (most aren't even properly logical principles, like the supposed transformation of quantity into quality). Thus your video reduces dialectics to the idea that A and non-A are both true depending on the ‘perspective’ but that one is to be ‘preferred’. Obviously this is impossible to formalize into a proper logical principle, because of the those concepts of perspective and preference aren't logical (i.e. purely formal) ones. But even assuming dialectics is to be a logic in the broader sense of a ‘method of thinking’, this wasn't the actual point of Marx acknowledgement of contradictions as ‘real’. Marx acknowledge contradictions as real like Hegel did, not as denial of classical, formal logic. That is, he considered contradictions were real _because of the passage of time._ A thing is real and is its negation _in the sense that a thing contains the laws of its transformation into something else._ Classical logic is synchronistic and dialectical materialism was supposed to be diachronistic. It originally had nothing to do with this strange relativism. It's just that it allowed enough verbal sophistry that it could flourish under the pen of shrewd political leaders. You also don't seem to grasp what a paradox is. There is no logical paradox in claiming Jesus was both fully Man and fully God, just like there is no logical paradox in claiming an apple is both fully a fruit and fully green. You just implicitly assume manhood is incompatible with godhood, you're implicitly begging the question. Though indeed the classical conception of the trinity is logically contradictory because it claims Jesus is God, the Father is God, but Jesus isn't the father, and God knows no parts but is absolutely simple. (I'm neither a communist nor christian, by the way.)

I know a joke about dialectical materialism: "What is a dialectical materialism?" "Take off your pants and I show you" ... "So, I have a cock in ass and you have a cock in ass. But what is a dialectical materialism I don't fucking know!"

Clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Full of unsubstantiated projections and ToTaLiTaRiSm-school divinations from superficial traits of the regurgitated chronicles. All claims, no basis. Empty. Man, if I was made to give a talk on a science I know nothing about and didn't read a lick of it - I'd present it as hokey gibberish too. 💁‍♂ Didn't even list the very fundamental principles after promising to…

It is impressive that so many creative types were drawn to this philosophy.

bla bla bla. fund my party!

Now i have to install stellaris again. :D ASCENSION !

Boy, people were stupid back then.

Very interesting English-language take on the subject! In Russia today 50s-era textbooks on logic are extremely popular today among parents trying to resist the EGE (brainrot state testing) system borrowed from the West. Dialectical materialism may have been trashed by the state in 1991, but it explains all the horrible things happening to our people since then.

Stalin found it necessary to falsify history and create a cult of personality around himself to defend himself from any and all criticism. The most monstrous lies and injustices were committed in defense of a new cream of labor aristocrats. Instead of leader of the world revolution he would become mockingly know as the great leader of defeats. He created a murder machine of which the current leader of the Russian oligarchy Putin was once a member of. .

That's truly a satan's shit. It makes your brain rotting and steaming. I'm actually impressed how much they were talented on selling bullshit.

These are really fascinating videos. I would love to see more material on the Soviets from you.

*Let's see if you can tell which view is from a National Socialist, "Nazi", "Facsist", ect. and which is from a International Socialist, "Marxist", "Neo-Liberal", "progressive", ect* *1:* "Equal liability of all to work." *2:* "The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically." *3:* "We demand the nationalisation of all associated industries." *4:* "Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." *5:* "We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press." *6:* "We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens." Abolition of unearned incomes. *7:* "Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery." *8:* "We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare" *9:* "The men of the New Republic will not be squeamish, either, in facing or inflicting death, because they will have a fuller sense of the possibilities of life than we possess. They will have an ideal that will make killing worth while." *10:* "I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every 5 years or every 7 years… Just put them there and say, ‘Sir or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existence… if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little bit more then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.'" Aside from the National Socialists, "Nazi's" being obsessed with race, their political programs were quite similar. A fact that J. Goebbels even acknowledge in a 1920's speech. Yes, the National Socialists "Nazi" beat up on the Marxist International Socialists. But all Socialists have their infighting! We see some of the same fault lines in the Democratic Party today, with one part sticking to its traditional race-based victimization theory, while the other side is fighting for a class-warfare argument. This is a classic dichotomy. Answers: -25 Point National Socialist (Nazi) Program: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 -The Communist Manifesto: 1, 4 -H.G. Wells: 9 -George Bernard Shaw: 10

Summary: if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS

I think dialectical materialism is still quite widespread in the Eastern European and Central Asian academia, even after the dissolution of the USSR. It's just that it lost most of its ideological/political connotations, because the academics are strongly discouraged agsint criticizing the ruling elites. Many still view history through the lense of dialectical materialism, but when it comes to more modern events, our academics tend to turn a blind eye and go 100% into idealism (thus many of them are basically robbing themselves of intellectualism).

I am entirely fascinated by your work. Can i ask a question about you? Where are you from?

I think there's an error/typo in the DeMorgan's law portion. Law 2 should say "not (A and non-A)".

I heavily advise you to read "The Bull's Hour" by Yefremov. Though it may be unavailable in English, unfortunately. It sums up a lot of cosmists view and mixes them with the general communist ideas with a huge Yungian and Frankfurt school influx. Also minus eugenics

Well, diamat has really fallen outta grace here, in post-USSR, but truth be told.... USSR had utterly failed in educating diamat. Soviet philosophers, let alone teachers barely understood the principles of dialectical thought, and general populus had only retained the ideas of absolute and relative truths through two termins (истина и правда). People mostly saw this amazing philosophy as a ritual, or worse, a mandatory, forced insanity. Despite all that, when I crawl outta my CIS-lair into the western web and communicate with the western leftists, it really shocks, how badly they lack any substantial logic at all. In the best cases they are somewhat adequately educated with formal, and communism requires dialectical thinking for it's arguementation. Post-soviet sphere is better philosophically educated in general, and in therms of diamat vastly in particular

how much effort people make to justify Hegelian schizophrenia!

A Communist is someone who reads Marx and Engels. A Capitalist is someone who understands Marx and Engels.

extremely underrated channel

2:25 the beards are slowly disappearing 😅

“Dialectical thinking vanished overnight?” The soviets are the sole heirs of the SOCRATIC method?! Sure bud there’s no Catholic Church or western civilization or nothing

Liked and subscribed. Love to feel like a 20th century peasant being lured to my doom

Great video

A disgrace of a video, I recommend having more than one source to diversify the sophistry. Dialectical materialism acknowledge objective truth. The law of physic. Natural selection. Logic and mathematical axioms. Otherwise it would not be materialist, because materialism is the acknowledgement that material, and not any ideal or higher being, form the world. That is an objective assertion. What makes dialectical materialism separated from metaphysical (vulgar) materialism is acknowledging that many observation is relative truth, and it's no point of see this observation in abstract, but to think of what context makes it correct, and what makes the opposite of it correct. (Ex: Human are wage slave. It's only true in capitalism, and not true in feudalism or communism). And more radically, being is also relative (Ex: My ancestors are human. False, because from Darwin we know apes is humanity's ancestors) It is not that both statement are valid because "the totality" (the typical boogyman used by anti-communists) demands unity, but for those who assert that a truth (relavtive as most social truth are) can't one day turns into it's opposite, they are doom to dogmatism.

excellent job! this reminds me of when C Hitchens would debate religious types, they'd always argue that the 100m killed during the soviet era was committed under an atheist regime. he'd argue back (grossly simplified by me here) that the soviets were really using religious techniques and beliefs systems to run their society - and atheism had nothing to do with it.

Excellent essay! Only kind of logic didn't vanish overnight, it is still alive in the remains of the secret police which, today, still run the propaganda of the state held media (Russia, Serbia...). Also, you avoided the question of "the negation".

Can you please remove the age restriction on the video? I cannot download the video if you don't. I will unsubscribe to your channel because I view this as undemocratic Why must knowledge stand still?