วีดีโอ

Focussing on class as Identity as opposed to impersonal process (concrete practices to produce reproduce needs). Class is adjective that describes social process Treat class conflict myth as fictional. Marxist trying to relate to nature of reality/social theory Braverman - industries competing against one another. Need to make use of peoples capacity of time to drive innovation. So its class conflict driving innovation (uk back to work) Teleology as prescibing as violence. Essentialist, totalising others. Critique of marxism

It wasn’t just Schmitt that said democracy requires homogeneity it was also Aristotle and that diversity allows tyranny. Laugh all you want civil rights led to the end of democracy

Liberalism is the enemy of mankind

What a lovely conversation. Shocked this doesn't have more views.

q: is security not at the foundation of what every society claims to offer? but also this got y'all a sub because you were actually willing to challenge leftists in a way that helps us prepare for the very valid questions we're gonna have to answer from the lumpen

Wait how did that whole “dictatorship of the proletariat” thing work out? Oh yeah it disintegrated along ethnic lines 3 generations after its establishment. But wait, how did that whole socialist “brotherhood and unity” experiment work out in Yugoslavia?….. hmmmmm.?!? But I guess Schmitts wrong I suppose….

Class is a concept originating from the powerful, from the courts .probably from clans before that. It's a construction coming from people who look for differences between people and groups.

Marxism is phylosophy!

This was a great intro to Geuss, picked up Philosophy and Real Politics after listening to this the first time and it didn't disappoint. I'm always saying, "who whom?"

I love the shitting on hillbilly elegy considering...

Metaphor: ReFantazio is inspired by Thomas More's Utopia. A character named More serves as your guide, the world map mirrors that of Utopia island, and the game is about building a great nation. We demand a Let's Play. Gamers Rise Up!

18:00 about the driving ideal of capitalism, I think Weber could not directly put forward that newly founded regimes of protestants were feeling very unsafe since they get there by destroying much more robust and culturally embedded system of feudalism, feeling that they could lose their control over society at any moment, they were very proactive towards accumulating wealth because unlike times of the old direct military actions towards society may lead bloody revolutions just like in Britain, France, Netherlands and etc which brought bourgeoisie to power. So they thought accumulating wealth is a safer way of accumulating power and political authority over people and since they divorced business from morals they could as act viciously as they can as long as they could keep the mask of progress as "if we win money we produce tech and tech will ease your life. It is win win". But they are wrong and we are seeing the results of this egocentric and megalomaniac attitude towards life. They are trying to extend their will to others as absolute as they can and this is enslaving people and people feel it. We are being depraved from most of our dreams which could have been fulfilled if the world wasn't this centralized globally at the hands of some so-called "progressive liberals" whose only goal is to cling on their control that is about 200 years old prevent new authorities to arise. One can see this control freakiness in their push of regulation of AI so no one can beat them in anything. They have greed as Weber overlooked but their control freakiness is the central dogma to their reason for existence(raison d’être). Bourgeoisie in European cities around 1800 took control of Europe and America and they are trying to keep it that way, that is all. They are not just fighting workers because in them they see the possible regime changer of their former self in the era of collapsing feudalism. That is why in every capitalist regime the middle class always diminishes. Since they are so tend to act, they couldn't make a convincing reason for their existence against the growing crowds and when Talcott Parsons found Weber's work on dusty shelves of German Bibliotheks they rejoiced like nothing else even thought they never read or cared about what weber said. He was advertised and propagandized by the wealthy global elite as if his work was actually groundbreaking but one can see that he was just a normal academic who should have been forgotten if not for the interference of the capitalists themselves as Lütfi Sunar puts it.

The rise of the national-security state in America in the 1920s - 1950s definitely shows this to be correct. The Immigration Act of the 1924, the establishment of the INS in 1933, the CIA and NSA in 1947 and effectively the establishment of a permanent standing army with wars in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. The security state (of which fascism is a variant) is the worst thing to come out of 20th century capitalism.

Good video

47:21 At the time that Lukács wrote this, that was not the prevailing theory in social democracy. Not even the stereotype of Bernstein applies here. The social democratic parties then were based on orthodox Marxism and envisioned a rupture with capitalism. The 1920 program of Swiss Social Democratic Party even approaches the “administration of things,” stateless communism. Reform as far as it existed had nothing to do with Polyanian compartmentalized removal of commodification. Some parties conceived of it as the precursor that inevitable rupture.

No sound is playing while the time advances.

What I find especially intriguing about the Adorno-Bloch debate is who emerges from the legacy of each position. As I've seen it, an overwhelming majority of academic types follow the tradition of Adorno. I've found far fewer Blochians, but Murray Bookchin is perhaps the most interesting. His book "The Ecology of Freedom" especially takes Bloch's project very seriously.

If that lispy guy says ykno one more time… Also the chick in this is most interesting and insightful and bold

Mathematics is the queen of sciences but I don't think you morons ever came to know what math is.. so that's alright

this was amazing! thank you !

The thing is, Herbert Marcuse also had very good relations with the CIA. He like Hannah Arendt, as Left Intelligentsia shared a devotion for capitalism and one-world-order. That is why they both repeatedly collaborated with institutions and the CIA, to create all such facades of critical theory, social movements, and the popular culture..

Consider reading The Vanishing Mediator: Narrative Structure in Max Weber by Fred Jameson.

Postmodernists: "There is no such thing as a society!!!" 😜

On the point around 34:30, one of the things I notice about protest in liberal societies is that the level of individualism/atomisation I experience makes chanting group slogans at rallies feel absurd, even though I agree wholeheartedly with the slogans in private (such as Free Palestine). Regarding the way in which liberalism interpellates subjects into collectives, a great example can be found in the advertising for my university: "Find Your Why".

Very interesting. Just a few days ago Ann Coulter (AKA The Witch,) was bluntly saying to Vivek Ramaswzmy that she would never vote for him because only WASPS should Be in charge. And she went on to Say that Protestant Ethics ( Don't be ashamed of your success and wealth as It's God blessing) was What made our country great....

i think, you are giving too much meaning to Weber's style. scientists often make very wishy-washy claims like "A may be associated with B". yes, it's often to deflect criticism, but it's also not to oversensationalize results. you can't claim that you have definitive results when you clearly don't, that's lying. and people will notice, and will agro at such claims.

Hey found your podcast and I’m listening through and I love it already: for 17:00 I thought Weber was describing capitalism as a process of wealth generation that assumes an industrial, logical, and infinitely viable wealth generation. So it’s not really just wealth accumulation, it’s the expectations of wealth generation that he ties to the creation of capitalism. Thought I do agree that he does a poor argument in defense of rich, greed, and wealth past people. He assumes they were haphazardly making money, which is apart of that resonation you all mentioned about the text, we are being greedy differently now than in the past for some reason. Still listening through, so maybe someone mentions it. Love the work so far, I am definitely subscribed now :)

I love your work folks, but I do gotta challenge you on the leaderless movements. If you want to attack this fundamental idea of anarchism you gotta make a real argument against it, otherwise it just feels like a knee-jerk reaction. It's ok if you don't know how leaderlessness looks, but I think there are some really interesting and effective methods of building movements (e.g. affinity groups, spokes, spokes councils, community care networks, etc) without trying to just democratically centralize everything and vie for state power and then reproduce issues we don't want reproduced because large majoritarian democratic structures are inherently alienating and unresponsive to minorities in the group (and therefore often reproduce issues of racism, sexism, classism, and more). I think a combination of anarchist and abolitionist organizing without the loss of marxist analysis of capitalism, obviously, is a good path forward. The community care concept within abolition gives us the ability to use direct action and mutual aid to move the base forward as we also move the superstructure. It also allows us to move these things forward without alienation or hidden contradictions that cause systemic issues that are incompatible with anarchist-communist aims (e.g. universal public healthcare for all, but being done by hyper-exploiting healthcare workers, or creating a state socialist society that is incapable of escaping the capital-labor relation and instead just shifting it into a state-labor relation)

Great job

You guys are astoundingly clueless! Take the time to look at the political manifestos of major parties in Europe (East and West), and of emerging postcolonial states in the period from 1944 to 1978. That is the debate and the audience he was addressing, not people who grew up after the Cold War was over.

Where is 16? Seems 17 starts in the middle of a conversation

Who, how, when has measured the temp?

AndrewCotton you morons have no business doing a psychological podcast

AndrewCotton Say it with me guys- psychoanalysis is based on the repression of unconscious wishes impulses and desires

You psychological geniuses didn't mention the UNCONSCIOUS once

The entire enterprise of psychoanalysis is based on REPRESSION

The pleasure principle is a state of what? Rest?? You guys don't understand psychoanalysis at all.

love this channel

as a 17 year old planning to undergradure in critical theory im super appreciative of getting a window into the relm of critical theory today. thanks so much.

I think Geuss makes an argument for "why" a value is relevant NOW, and begs an interest in the importance of our participation in the role of a mechanism of enforcement to justify what is relevant. The state is a good example of an enforcement mechanism, because Geuss thinks realism is a practice of engaging a form of coercion (compulsion) to comply to what best serves the majority based on what has happened in fact/history. That is especially after evaluative processes in institutions of enforcement help us show that a competing/conflicting interests is developed by some degree of reconciliation with what is normatively relevant at a point in time. This process entail the creation of shared interests while appreciative of the fact that politics constitutes decision making that is pressed with time. This approach is intended to relax the ways normative frameworks (ideals we imagine as capable of realising) often resist criticism by shutting down the question of "why that is of value right now?" It draws attention to the burden of convincing others that a value is relevant. The point is that where an apparent requirement for change/revision is made without reference to lived experience of the formation of a shared interests, Geuss then accepts some form of normativity because coercion is implicit and always present to either sustain a relevant norm or review it; rather that realizing change/development from our capability to just reason. @55:33 reckoning with our partiality. I think he captures this view in his book History and Illusion in Politics.

Satre is not a philosopher😡

Let's gooo

"civil war" = intra-unit conflict, struggle, war.

Interesting that this view was offered up to me by the YT algorithm.

that was fun

Good to see you❤

Oh i love this episode I’m glad to see it here! The notes are something I frequently come back to

Stan the "Reticent Socialism of Rawls".

*Promosm* 🌹