Around 43:00, Dr Ball says he *likes* dialectical materialism rather than saying he is one. This is an excellent thing to do. He is open to critique but finds this analysis helpful. That's the way to go about academics. If we had a strong segment on Black Liberation Media discussing atheism and lack of faith (which have stronger ties to Marxism than religious folks) that'd be an excellent addition to the channel. We get a lot of revolutionary religious folks in the black liberation tradition which is great but it's also good to explore *why* Marx and others were ardent atheists, with Marx being an axiomatic atheist and saying atheism would come with socialism. Langston Hughes and Richard Wright were black atheists, prominent leftists, and this is part of our tradition too. Let's make this a lasting segment and name it after Wright and Hughes.
41:51 \o/ I thought the symbol came from the discussion when Jab or the whole EYL crew were called gynocentric. I think Diallo came up with the actual symbol.
Yep. That's the origin story. It was Diallo's idea. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I think I was saying "yall," referring to the EYL crew. And someone in the chat pointed out the obvious materialism that I forgot to mention; the symbol is supposed to look like Dr Ball. The "O" is supposed to be for his head since he's bald. Will bring this up next time.
I opine (shoutout to Chitimacha) that my being "spiritual" vs religious is still nothing more than a need for control in a country that yields me ultimately powerless. on the flip side, spirituality helps me feel connected to...something? What I hope are the ancestors? Would I feel this way or need spirituality though if the majority of the planet existed in ecological harmony? Dope show, y'all!!
Physicist here: The big bang isn't necessarily a misrepresentation. It is better called "the big expansion" but big bang is the term we use. LeMaitre was a priest and physicist but he was a very mainstream scientist. Physicists' best explanation of the universe right now is the standard model of particle physics and what underpins that is quantum field theory (ehich can be expanded upon but we don't know yet). There are fields, even in vacuum (the traditional idea of nothing is vacuum, no air, no molecules or particles, nothing). So particles can "pop out of nowhere" because at the base, particles are just excitations in fields. Although i like dialectics as one methodology, It is also helpful to stop using it at the point when you start talking about physics, in the same way that theory means something different in science and social science, contradiction (in both the math way and the social way) breaks down at the higher level math of quantum mechanics and such.
Please keep contributing your expertise like this. It's appreciated. If you have any recommendations for laypeople like Jared and myself to dig into, we'd definitely read it. Can you explain what "contradiction breaks down at the higher level math of quantum mechanics" means? I'm not sure of the difference between "the math way" vs "the social way" of understanding contradiction in dialectical materialism. Moreover, as a philosophical worldview and methodology I'm not sure one "stops" using dialectical materialism in any particular field. I'm thinking of Lewontin's "The Dialectical Biologist" for example. It's about the approach to knowledge, its social context, and how its conceptualized, communicated, and interpreted rather than the specifics of the field, but I hear what you're saying about not overextending diamat's explanatory power. I'll try not to get out of my depth with any physics examples in the future though. I butchered a reference to the double slit experiment and wave particle duality, but was trying to explain how dialectical thinking is necessary for understanding the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Would love your thoughts on that too.
@joshuaingram6732 I say at some level it becomes unhelpful to use these terms because there are social contradictions in the Marxist sense but no contradictions in nature. This is why we can explain it with math and get predictable results. Anything we don't understand how to describe yet in physics is a problem of us not writing it down well enough, but nature cannot contradict or else nothing would work (I.e. Engels saying motion itself is a contradiction or √-1 is a contradiction within his writing in Anti Duhring chapter on Quantity and Quality is not only unhelpful at that level but wrong *altogether*, in the mathematical way of describing contradiction and even in the social way of describing contradiction. Marx was a lot more astute on his mathematics than Engels was). The physicist VA Fock was a Soviet physicist who wrote more on this but basically nature exists and we observe it and try to make models and predictions (modern science) and humans have contradictions. We should *like* dialectical materialism as a useful methodology but not overextend it. Similarly, physics doesn't rely just on material (matter vs matter) interactions but also statistical observations and things like entanglement that need no physical medium or physical contact to occur so many prefer physicalism/naturalism (we accept the physical world and natural observations) as a term rather than materialism at this point in history (very minor point that means a lot in physics but not germain to social conversations so don't feel obligated to be too beholden to that; it's not a nuance really discussed that much. Typically materialism and physicalism or naturalism are used interchangeably).
The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is I think Marx’s best example of historic/dialectal materialism. And of course Anti Dhuring by Engels is good.
It would be amazing if Dr Ball and Josh could continue these conversations and create a pipeline to decent politics for new black atheists, rather than getting down a reactionary path and only later finding good community.
But Europeans have a long prechristian history of nature worship, from trees to Pan. I’m not sure if that theory about Europeans evolving in an ice age holds water. Also I don’t think cultures persist for thousands of years like that. What does the ice age have to do with the life of a European in 1253 ce? What material connections are there, for example between the Bronze Age and the medieval period england went from a rainforest to heathland.
Agreed. I don't subscribe to things like the Iceman Inheritance or other environmental determinist streams of thought about human populations. They are fruit from the same poisonous tree as scientific racism and eugenics. I believe as organisms of the same species, we (humans of different "races") are very similar. Our differences emerge from our histories, migration and trade patterns, diverse natural environments, agricultural practices, etc. My understanding is capitalist alienation from the environment over the past few centuries was a big part of what drove European peasantry off the land and away from indigenous belief systems that might have been more harmonious with nature. Christendom's effect on European societies was enormous and directly coincided with the rise of colonialism/imperialism.
I find your lack of faith disturbing and the Materialist can't get away with today so easily.😅 I do think it's beneficial to explore Africana theories to inform how we make meaning of the immaterial world, which for me is the Africana Mythos/African Unconscious. It may be helpful to think about how we can agree on the terms for understanding and utilizing the African symbolic life in our revolutionary struggle. I think establishing these terms between the materialist and existentialist needs to happen if we want our alternative institutions to reflect the collective awareness of our people. I'm sure we can agree to work toward something like that...I hope😅 . I think it's a way to build a new culture to sustain us during these trying times of this global right wing economic nationalism. For me developing the terms for engaging with the immaterial among our people can be a praxis of returning to source. "For now may we be as one."- Cedric Robinson 💫
"I find your lack of faith disturbing", do you see how weird this sentence is? It would be immature to say "I find your belief in invisible spirits" or "belief in ancient texts" to be disturbing because there's history tied to it and traditions that just be examined, but atheists are just flatly disrespected so easily. Do you see the asymmetry in respect and good faith engagement in your starting sentence?
Do you know how weird you sound to use phrases like good faith arguments when my suggestions on my post was about how our people can establish a good faith on the symbolic life? Do you not know what good faith is or are you not critically thinking whenever you hear a new idea from BLM platform? Besides it's a star wars pun and a play on building good faith about the symbolic life and immaterial. The symbolic life has a function. Be for real.
@@SithLordPrince just keep in mind the total lack of respect you approach atheism with relative to religious folks. Just bc you put later in your statement that you "hope" we can work towards something doesn't mean we can't see the disdain in the paragraph. I doubt you'd call a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or African traditionalist 's beliefs that differ from you "disturbing" in your first sentence.
@@AP-pk6mk Do you not know how weird you sound that you don't know a star wars pun when you read it? 🤓 Do you know how weird you sound in assuming that I'm against atheism because I have a critique and a suggestion? Are we not 'trained marxist'? So it's disrespectful to raise a suggestion and question? 😅Y'all revolutionary purists get on my nerves always reaching for consistency and not saying nothing. Chill out I'm agnostic..and a sith lord. 🤓.
@@AP-pk6mk Peace. I think SithLordPrince was just referencing the famous Darth Vader quote from Star Wars. The username is a reference to the Sith which Darth Vader was a part of and he says that line in the first movie.
Yes. The hub is rebuilding at the moment. If you follow our social media @blackmenbuild you can stay up-to-date. Hopefully this time next year ATL hub is up and running again. In the meantime, please check out and participate in Theory Thursdays and Mass Calls which are part of our national programming. They should resume in January 2025 but the old videos are on our TH-cam channel. And if you're ever in a hub city feel free to pull up to a Men's Circle.
Spicey take, but I don't like Richard Wolff. He is too contradictory in his dumbed-down content. He's gone from "socialism with Chinese characteristics" to "capitalism with Chinese characteristics" and basically described anything and everything less rabidly capitalist than the US as a "type of socialism." The "tree" of thought that links all socialist "branches" has a particular theme ("the bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control," which the Plato Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy arrived at by going through the various branches. This was the minimum defining characteristic that contrasts it from capitalism found common to all branches of socialism), but Wolff and others who lean towards statism throw that theme out the window in favor of a totally new one that is more "vibes" than anything: the gubment does things for the people and production is used to help the people to some degree. Wolff has been asked questions on whether or not this or that country is socialist, and his answers are unclear. His answer for China was a non-answer. I'm TOLD that his books are really clear on things, but that's the problem: his BOOKS are not what most people are exposed to, those short dumbed-down clips are. And guess how many anti-socialists ALSO refer to Richard Wolff when pointing out how inconsistent and non-credible socialists are when they try to advocate for change in that direction. "Hey, you've got this MARXIST economist saying that China is socialist, so you want to turn us all into China!" Every R.W. "socialism/capitalism with Chinese characteristics" or "socialism is when state do thing" clip gives anti-socialists convenient and free ammunition, and confuses a LOT of people who otherwise have no clue but are open to the ideas. So I don't like Richard Wolff. Being great at anti-capitalism doesn't make one great at helping people understand socialism. 8:25 Eewww..putting Marx and Stalin in the same sentence...I feel dirty just listening to it. Stalin and other party leaders were notorious for talking about "democratization" in their speeches, even repeatedly using the word, but euphemistically and with no intention of actually fulfilling the promises. If I knew nothing else about him that would be enough to reject him as socialist. You can say all of the right words and phrases, you can say all of the "correct" anti-capitalist stuff, but that doesn't make you a socialist. It just means you know the right words to say. And when you use your position to see the destruction of many communist movements around the world by siding with the bourgeoisie against them, your credentials should automatically be revoked...yet too many people ignore or downplay that in order to keep believing he was some great thinker/doer/whatever. Oh, and lest we all forget...LYSENKOISM WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY STALIN AND MAO, INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER! 8:50 By Luna? Luna Oi? I've tried listening to her content and she butchers Marx. It's been a long time since I listened, but she's really just a Maoist, which is revolutionary STATISM with Confucionist ideals, and Marxist phraseology and criticisms of capitalism. The longer I listen the more dubious I'm growing of just where this interview is going. I'm a fan of BLM, but this sounds suspicious. The "Marxism-Leninism" of people like Luna, Stalin, Mao etc is all about the revolution and not at all about what comes next. They talk about the "vanguard" and "dictatorship of the proletariat," but IN OPPOSITION to both Marx AND Lenin. Marx's words on the "advanced workers" was nothing more than to organize the proletariat into a class for the proletariat to democratically self-determine, and his words on the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was AS A CLASS, yet Luna et al translate it to "the vanguard party must stand at the head of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the dictators over the proletariat." When you really examine their arguments and advocacy it all comes down to aesthetic changes to the hierarchical power dynamics (they are proponents of hierarchy, not its opponents. A lot of them even say it openly), and both Marx AND Lenin rejected that quite explicitly. So the only "Marxism" and "Leninism" they have any claim to is "here's why capitalism is bad" and "let's fight a revolution and suppress the brougeoisie." That's where it ends. Both Marx and Lenin thoroughly explained that the WHOLE CLASS of workers (not the "right people" from the class and intelligentsia) must govern AS A CLASS via democracy, not a select few "on behalf of the class." It's no coincidence that an honest description of their governments sounds almost identical to an honest description of any capitalist republic or monarchy. They're all followers of Aristotle's "wise" teachings on rule of the few "best people." Lenin could not have said it more often, even, that the fullest democracy, "democracy from below" (he had plenty of ways to say the same thing so that it was clear what he meant), was required to move from state capitalism WHERE THE PEOPLE CONTROL THE STATE (the people, not a party over the people) to socialism...yet "Marxist-Leninists" twist that to mean its opposite. "They get to elect their rulers, so that's democracy!" Just like the bourgeoisie's concept of democracy, limiting REAL participation to the few at the top. This is a bit of a rant, but there's a lot to be suspicious/critical of regarding the brand of "Marxism" and even "socialism" more broadly that Luna and others like her subscribe to, and Wolff's (in)consistency in describing what any of it even means. Edit: As the discussion went on all of the early suspicions I had went away. Overall it was a great conversation, especially the breakdown of the 90s interview.
54:10 or so. The very concept of "free choice" is antithetical to Christianity, yet fundamental to it somehow. You're supposed to "freely choose" to believe because belief is merely lip service if it's not willing, yet the devil is supposedly evil BECAUSE he represents free will. You have the free will to choose to do what you're told, or to be slaughtered for choosing not to. Like turned into a pillar of salt, or have some "chosen people" butcher you, or have God drown you in a global flood, etc. We're indoctrinated by our parents, and because they're the ultimate authority figure in our lives, because we have no reason to disbelieve them, because their indoctrination is constant, because we have no defense against indoctrination, it works on most kids. It doesn't matter how strongly they believe in the correctness of what they're doing, just like it doesn't matter how strongly Maoists et al believe in the correctness of their hierarchical views on how to achieve the desired end result; the end result of forcing it from above is the same, robbing people of the right to self-determine. 1:13:50 The community. Positive social relations, positive social interactions make people feel good. Religion has largely mastered all of the things to make (most) people feel good and like they belong because they've had a lot of time to perfect their methods without the ruling class undermining them; religion helps the ruling class maintain control. Especially Abrahamic religions, which teach salvation for the PERSONAL/INDIVIDUAL soul rather than improving the world through organized community efforts in opposition to authoritarianism. Abrahamic religions are particularly supportive of authoritarianism because they share the hierarchical foundation and place the blame for everything on the individual's choices..."and God will judge those rich people that actually run everything. Just quietly endure it and you'll be rewarded for eternity." That also places a low value on human life as not as precious as they claim, because the more you view your life as the only one you'll have the less likely you are to be accepting of poverty, unfairness, etc...and also the more MEANINGFUL your own sacrifices become, since you aren't be rewarded for them in some afterlife where it's basically the credits of a video game where you see the ending. Life is more meaningful and precious when it is limited, and more disposable when there is an eternal soul and some post-life judge to fix all the problems. You can turn monotheists on their head with their "eternal soul" thinking. Who said our soul has to go to some eternal waiting room where we're either punished for ininity years + infinity years multiplied by infinity years, or rewarded for that same infinity forever and then some? That turns life into the sole eye-blink of a respite from an eternal nightmare, not some "test" by a benevolent deity. If resurrection is part of your canon, why not reincarnation? If you lived a poor life hated by all, why not believe that you will reincarnate into a happier life? Why must the soul only have one single chance to experience life rather than have eternal growth of the soul by experiencing life countless times? I'm more inclined to believe in that if there is some deity and if we all have souls, because the monotheist "one-and-done" life seems more like a horror story than the product of some benevolent being, whereas reincarnation will teach you the full meaning of humanity as you experience it from all different aspects, thus granting you the greatest wisdom born of experience of the best and the worst of human behavior and potential, also granting you the ultimate empathy for living beings because you personally know their suffering as your own. Why not? Because it's harder to control someone if they aren't made to be afraid and subservient to their hierarchs.
I can appreciate this critique of folks like Prof Wolff and of certain Marxist Leninists as you've studied and experienced them. To be clear, the goal here was to offer a digestible explanation of dialectical and historical materialism which I think Prof Wolff provides. It was not a blanket endorsement of his analysis or understanding of socialism. I recommend you visit the earlier BLM discussion when Prof Wolff was a guest to dig into this more. You might find me in the chat making similar critiques to the ones you outlined here. Marx and Stalin were juxtaposed because Stalin articulated a formal explanation of dialectical materialism in 1938. Our aim was to explain the concept itself not trace the historical paths of various Marxist movements and thinkers (I even specifically avoided the term Marxism for most of this). Regarding Luna, again putting the individual aside, my goal is to find sources that explain the dialectical materialist method. Her and her comrades translated a text from the Vietnamese Ministry of Education meaning she isn't the author. In fact, she discusses how the book is a standard part of Vietnamese education curriculum that she took for granted when she in school. Your critique of her application of Marxism is separate from the context behind the book's creation. If you have critiques, it'd be more helpful for our program for you to focus on the text itself, whether that be content or implementation. Additionally, we challenge audience members to offer your own sources that you enjoy. We're open to all. Study is a collective practice. Finally, while you focused on Wolff and Luna in your response, please remember that I grounded this discussion on Black Liberation Media with African revolutionaries who practiced and theorized dialectical materialism. Rodney, Cabral, Nkrumah, Alkalimat, Clarke, Sundiata, Ture, Assata, and Dhoruba bin-Wahad were all explicitly mentioned. Next to the Vietnamese textbook is the Black Liberation Army Study Guide we pulled from. You stated you were "suspicious" of where we were going but didn't mention a single African scholar in your response.
@@joshuaingram6732 Thanks for the clarification. My beef with those people aside I did find it to be a useful discussion and can appreciate how carefully you used their content. Since I ended my post early in the video (I tend to write a lot and there are length constraints) I didn't add that, over all, the discussion was good. I should have edited it afterwards to reflect that. I particularly enjoyed the breakdown and response to that 90s interview. Anyway, thanks again. It WAS good content.
I think she could have challenged the validity of separation of church and state a little more. The doctrine of discovery popped up in my head, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg invoked it in a Supreme Court ruling which I get was way after this.
It's so hard to get black atheist content, despite the fact that I know there are quite a few of us out there.
Man Dr Ball if you give us an atheist show I would really appreciate this!
Seconded
@@o.p.8828 YES! Not enough (especially politically radical) BLACK/AFRICAN ungodly represententation
@ ✊🏿EXACTLY! Bro Diallo Kenyatta show is the only other one I know of!
Thanks, Josh for the much-needed breakdown of diamat
Yessss let’s go, thanks for devoting some time to these very important foundations of Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary sciences, Dr JAB❤️🙏
Sis was cookin!!!
Haven't even FINISHED watching this yet and giving BLM a 💯💯🔥
Around 43:00, Dr Ball says he *likes* dialectical materialism rather than saying he is one. This is an excellent thing to do. He is open to critique but finds this analysis helpful. That's the way to go about academics.
If we had a strong segment on Black Liberation Media discussing atheism and lack of faith (which have stronger ties to Marxism than religious folks) that'd be an excellent addition to the channel. We get a lot of revolutionary religious folks in the black liberation tradition which is great but it's also good to explore *why* Marx and others were ardent atheists, with Marx being an axiomatic atheist and saying atheism would come with socialism. Langston Hughes and Richard Wright were black atheists, prominent leftists, and this is part of our tradition too. Let's make this a lasting segment and name it after Wright and Hughes.
41:51 \o/ I thought the symbol came from the discussion when Jab or the whole EYL crew were called gynocentric. I think Diallo came up with the actual symbol.
Yep. That's the origin story. It was Diallo's idea. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I think I was saying "yall," referring to the EYL crew. And someone in the chat pointed out the obvious materialism that I forgot to mention; the symbol is supposed to look like Dr Ball. The "O" is supposed to be for his head since he's bald. Will bring this up next time.
I opine (shoutout to Chitimacha) that my being "spiritual" vs religious is still nothing more than a need for control in a country that yields me ultimately powerless. on the flip side, spirituality helps me feel connected to...something? What I hope are the ancestors? Would I feel this way or need spirituality though if the majority of the planet existed in ecological harmony? Dope show, y'all!!
Physicist here: The big bang isn't necessarily a misrepresentation. It is better called "the big expansion" but big bang is the term we use. LeMaitre was a priest and physicist but he was a very mainstream scientist. Physicists' best explanation of the universe right now is the standard model of particle physics and what underpins that is quantum field theory (ehich can be expanded upon but we don't know yet). There are fields, even in vacuum (the traditional idea of nothing is vacuum, no air, no molecules or particles, nothing). So particles can "pop out of nowhere" because at the base, particles are just excitations in fields.
Although i like dialectics as one methodology, It is also helpful to stop using it at the point when you start talking about physics, in the same way that theory means something different in science and social science, contradiction (in both the math way and the social way) breaks down at the higher level math of quantum mechanics and such.
Please keep contributing your expertise like this. It's appreciated. If you have any recommendations for laypeople like Jared and myself to dig into, we'd definitely read it. Can you explain what "contradiction breaks down at the higher level math of quantum mechanics" means? I'm not sure of the difference between "the math way" vs "the social way" of understanding contradiction in dialectical materialism.
Moreover, as a philosophical worldview and methodology I'm not sure one "stops" using dialectical materialism in any particular field. I'm thinking of Lewontin's "The Dialectical Biologist" for example. It's about the approach to knowledge, its social context, and how its conceptualized, communicated, and interpreted rather than the specifics of the field, but I hear what you're saying about not overextending diamat's explanatory power. I'll try not to get out of my depth with any physics examples in the future though. I butchered a reference to the double slit experiment and wave particle duality, but was trying to explain how dialectical thinking is necessary for understanding the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Would love your thoughts on that too.
@joshuaingram6732 I say at some level it becomes unhelpful to use these terms because there are social contradictions in the Marxist sense but no contradictions in nature. This is why we can explain it with math and get predictable results. Anything we don't understand how to describe yet in physics is a problem of us not writing it down well enough, but nature cannot contradict or else nothing would work (I.e. Engels saying motion itself is a contradiction or √-1 is a contradiction within his writing in Anti Duhring chapter on Quantity and Quality is not only unhelpful at that level but wrong *altogether*, in the mathematical way of describing contradiction and even in the social way of describing contradiction. Marx was a lot more astute on his mathematics than Engels was). The physicist VA Fock was a Soviet physicist who wrote more on this but basically nature exists and we observe it and try to make models and predictions (modern science) and humans have contradictions. We should *like* dialectical materialism as a useful methodology but not overextend it. Similarly, physics doesn't rely just on material (matter vs matter) interactions but also statistical observations and things like entanglement that need no physical medium or physical contact to occur so many prefer physicalism/naturalism (we accept the physical world and natural observations) as a term rather than materialism at this point in history (very minor point that means a lot in physics but not germain to social conversations so don't feel obligated to be too beholden to that; it's not a nuance really discussed that much. Typically materialism and physicalism or naturalism are used interchangeably).
The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is I think Marx’s best example of historic/dialectal materialism. And of course Anti Dhuring by Engels is good.
great content
It would be amazing if Dr Ball and Josh could continue these conversations and create a pipeline to decent politics for new black atheists, rather than getting down a reactionary path and only later finding good community.
as a 52 year old man I got a kick out of Hezakeya News
Absolutely Great Show!!!!!
But Europeans have a long prechristian history of nature worship, from trees to Pan. I’m not sure if that theory about Europeans evolving in an ice age holds water. Also I don’t think cultures persist for thousands of years like that. What does the ice age have to do with the life of a European in 1253 ce? What material connections are there, for example between the Bronze Age and the medieval period england went from a rainforest to heathland.
Agreed. I don't subscribe to things like the Iceman Inheritance or other environmental determinist streams of thought about human populations. They are fruit from the same poisonous tree as scientific racism and eugenics.
I believe as organisms of the same species, we (humans of different "races") are very similar. Our differences emerge from our histories, migration and trade patterns, diverse natural environments, agricultural practices, etc. My understanding is capitalist alienation from the environment over the past few centuries was a big part of what drove European peasantry off the land and away from indigenous belief systems that might have been more harmonious with nature. Christendom's effect on European societies was enormous and directly coincided with the rise of colonialism/imperialism.
Yeah, exactly that’s like what I said but way smarter, someone should pay you for that level clarity.
Dam im that old! yungin hadda look up the great Groucho Marx 😂
21:33 what does it mean "to know"? what are the parameters that need to be met so that you can then say you "know" that thing?
The experience of participation with an event. The experience is a down-grade of the possibility.
Yes were black but there’s nothing wrong with being a world historian and building in other cultures to benefit our own
Dr Ball thank you. We need a BLACK Atheist Pan-African thought
Shout out to #BroDiallo 🔥🪘
The way the Bible would be on the banned book list as well. Contradiction clear at 1:17:34.
I find your lack of faith disturbing and the Materialist can't get away with today so easily.😅 I do think it's beneficial to explore Africana theories to inform how we make meaning of the immaterial world, which for me is the Africana Mythos/African Unconscious. It may be helpful to think about how we can agree on the terms for understanding and utilizing the African symbolic life in our revolutionary struggle. I think establishing these terms between the materialist and existentialist needs to happen if we want our alternative institutions to reflect the collective awareness of our people. I'm sure we can agree to work toward something like that...I hope😅 . I think it's a way to build a new culture to sustain us during these trying times of this global right wing economic nationalism. For me developing the terms for engaging with the immaterial among our people can be a praxis of returning to source. "For now may we be as one."- Cedric Robinson 💫
"I find your lack of faith disturbing", do you see how weird this sentence is? It would be immature to say "I find your belief in invisible spirits" or "belief in ancient texts" to be disturbing because there's history tied to it and traditions that just be examined, but atheists are just flatly disrespected so easily. Do you see the asymmetry in respect and good faith engagement in your starting sentence?
Do you know how weird you sound to use phrases like good faith arguments when my suggestions on my post was about how our people can establish a good faith on the symbolic life? Do you not know what good faith is or are you not critically thinking whenever you hear a new idea from BLM platform? Besides it's a star wars pun and a play on building good faith about the symbolic life and immaterial. The symbolic life has a function. Be for real.
@@SithLordPrince just keep in mind the total lack of respect you approach atheism with relative to religious folks. Just bc you put later in your statement that you "hope" we can work towards something doesn't mean we can't see the disdain in the paragraph. I doubt you'd call a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or African traditionalist 's beliefs that differ from you "disturbing" in your first sentence.
@@AP-pk6mk Do you not know how weird you sound that you don't know a star wars pun when you read it? 🤓 Do you know how weird you sound in assuming that I'm against atheism because I have a critique and a suggestion? Are we not 'trained marxist'? So it's disrespectful to raise a suggestion and question? 😅Y'all revolutionary purists get on my nerves always reaching for consistency and not saying nothing. Chill out I'm agnostic..and a sith lord. 🤓.
@@AP-pk6mk Peace. I think SithLordPrince was just referencing the famous Darth Vader quote from Star Wars. The username is a reference to the Sith which Darth Vader was a part of and he says that line in the first movie.
I self lord and Master- at the Center. She was God body, that all.
Apparently BMB no longer meeting in ATLANTA...at least not at Murph
Yes. The hub is rebuilding at the moment. If you follow our social media @blackmenbuild you can stay up-to-date. Hopefully this time next year ATL hub is up and running again.
In the meantime, please check out and participate in Theory Thursdays and Mass Calls which are part of our national programming. They should resume in January 2025 but the old videos are on our TH-cam channel. And if you're ever in a hub city feel free to pull up to a Men's Circle.
@joshuaingram6732 In ATL now and would love to challenge myself in a community of liberation minded men
Spicey take, but I don't like Richard Wolff. He is too contradictory in his dumbed-down content. He's gone from "socialism with Chinese characteristics" to "capitalism with Chinese characteristics" and basically described anything and everything less rabidly capitalist than the US as a "type of socialism." The "tree" of thought that links all socialist "branches" has a particular theme ("the bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control," which the Plato Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy arrived at by going through the various branches. This was the minimum defining characteristic that contrasts it from capitalism found common to all branches of socialism), but Wolff and others who lean towards statism throw that theme out the window in favor of a totally new one that is more "vibes" than anything: the gubment does things for the people and production is used to help the people to some degree.
Wolff has been asked questions on whether or not this or that country is socialist, and his answers are unclear. His answer for China was a non-answer. I'm TOLD that his books are really clear on things, but that's the problem: his BOOKS are not what most people are exposed to, those short dumbed-down clips are. And guess how many anti-socialists ALSO refer to Richard Wolff when pointing out how inconsistent and non-credible socialists are when they try to advocate for change in that direction. "Hey, you've got this MARXIST economist saying that China is socialist, so you want to turn us all into China!" Every R.W. "socialism/capitalism with Chinese characteristics" or "socialism is when state do thing" clip gives anti-socialists convenient and free ammunition, and confuses a LOT of people who otherwise have no clue but are open to the ideas.
So I don't like Richard Wolff. Being great at anti-capitalism doesn't make one great at helping people understand socialism.
8:25 Eewww..putting Marx and Stalin in the same sentence...I feel dirty just listening to it. Stalin and other party leaders were notorious for talking about "democratization" in their speeches, even repeatedly using the word, but euphemistically and with no intention of actually fulfilling the promises. If I knew nothing else about him that would be enough to reject him as socialist. You can say all of the right words and phrases, you can say all of the "correct" anti-capitalist stuff, but that doesn't make you a socialist. It just means you know the right words to say. And when you use your position to see the destruction of many communist movements around the world by siding with the bourgeoisie against them, your credentials should automatically be revoked...yet too many people ignore or downplay that in order to keep believing he was some great thinker/doer/whatever. Oh, and lest we all forget...LYSENKOISM WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY STALIN AND MAO, INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER!
8:50 By Luna? Luna Oi? I've tried listening to her content and she butchers Marx. It's been a long time since I listened, but she's really just a Maoist, which is revolutionary STATISM with Confucionist ideals, and Marxist phraseology and criticisms of capitalism.
The longer I listen the more dubious I'm growing of just where this interview is going. I'm a fan of BLM, but this sounds suspicious. The "Marxism-Leninism" of people like Luna, Stalin, Mao etc is all about the revolution and not at all about what comes next. They talk about the "vanguard" and "dictatorship of the proletariat," but IN OPPOSITION to both Marx AND Lenin. Marx's words on the "advanced workers" was nothing more than to organize the proletariat into a class for the proletariat to democratically self-determine, and his words on the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was AS A CLASS, yet Luna et al translate it to "the vanguard party must stand at the head of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the dictators over the proletariat."
When you really examine their arguments and advocacy it all comes down to aesthetic changes to the hierarchical power dynamics (they are proponents of hierarchy, not its opponents. A lot of them even say it openly), and both Marx AND Lenin rejected that quite explicitly. So the only "Marxism" and "Leninism" they have any claim to is "here's why capitalism is bad" and "let's fight a revolution and suppress the brougeoisie." That's where it ends. Both Marx and Lenin thoroughly explained that the WHOLE CLASS of workers (not the "right people" from the class and intelligentsia) must govern AS A CLASS via democracy, not a select few "on behalf of the class." It's no coincidence that an honest description of their governments sounds almost identical to an honest description of any capitalist republic or monarchy. They're all followers of Aristotle's "wise" teachings on rule of the few "best people." Lenin could not have said it more often, even, that the fullest democracy, "democracy from below" (he had plenty of ways to say the same thing so that it was clear what he meant), was required to move from state capitalism WHERE THE PEOPLE CONTROL THE STATE (the people, not a party over the people) to socialism...yet "Marxist-Leninists" twist that to mean its opposite. "They get to elect their rulers, so that's democracy!" Just like the bourgeoisie's concept of democracy, limiting REAL participation to the few at the top.
This is a bit of a rant, but there's a lot to be suspicious/critical of regarding the brand of "Marxism" and even "socialism" more broadly that Luna and others like her subscribe to, and Wolff's (in)consistency in describing what any of it even means.
Edit: As the discussion went on all of the early suspicions I had went away. Overall it was a great conversation, especially the breakdown of the 90s interview.
54:10 or so. The very concept of "free choice" is antithetical to Christianity, yet fundamental to it somehow. You're supposed to "freely choose" to believe because belief is merely lip service if it's not willing, yet the devil is supposedly evil BECAUSE he represents free will. You have the free will to choose to do what you're told, or to be slaughtered for choosing not to. Like turned into a pillar of salt, or have some "chosen people" butcher you, or have God drown you in a global flood, etc. We're indoctrinated by our parents, and because they're the ultimate authority figure in our lives, because we have no reason to disbelieve them, because their indoctrination is constant, because we have no defense against indoctrination, it works on most kids. It doesn't matter how strongly they believe in the correctness of what they're doing, just like it doesn't matter how strongly Maoists et al believe in the correctness of their hierarchical views on how to achieve the desired end result; the end result of forcing it from above is the same, robbing people of the right to self-determine.
1:13:50 The community. Positive social relations, positive social interactions make people feel good. Religion has largely mastered all of the things to make (most) people feel good and like they belong because they've had a lot of time to perfect their methods without the ruling class undermining them; religion helps the ruling class maintain control. Especially Abrahamic religions, which teach salvation for the PERSONAL/INDIVIDUAL soul rather than improving the world through organized community efforts in opposition to authoritarianism. Abrahamic religions are particularly supportive of authoritarianism because they share the hierarchical foundation and place the blame for everything on the individual's choices..."and God will judge those rich people that actually run everything. Just quietly endure it and you'll be rewarded for eternity." That also places a low value on human life as not as precious as they claim, because the more you view your life as the only one you'll have the less likely you are to be accepting of poverty, unfairness, etc...and also the more MEANINGFUL your own sacrifices become, since you aren't be rewarded for them in some afterlife where it's basically the credits of a video game where you see the ending. Life is more meaningful and precious when it is limited, and more disposable when there is an eternal soul and some post-life judge to fix all the problems.
You can turn monotheists on their head with their "eternal soul" thinking. Who said our soul has to go to some eternal waiting room where we're either punished for ininity years + infinity years multiplied by infinity years, or rewarded for that same infinity forever and then some? That turns life into the sole eye-blink of a respite from an eternal nightmare, not some "test" by a benevolent deity. If resurrection is part of your canon, why not reincarnation? If you lived a poor life hated by all, why not believe that you will reincarnate into a happier life? Why must the soul only have one single chance to experience life rather than have eternal growth of the soul by experiencing life countless times?
I'm more inclined to believe in that if there is some deity and if we all have souls, because the monotheist "one-and-done" life seems more like a horror story than the product of some benevolent being, whereas reincarnation will teach you the full meaning of humanity as you experience it from all different aspects, thus granting you the greatest wisdom born of experience of the best and the worst of human behavior and potential, also granting you the ultimate empathy for living beings because you personally know their suffering as your own. Why not? Because it's harder to control someone if they aren't made to be afraid and subservient to their hierarchs.
I can appreciate this critique of folks like Prof Wolff and of certain Marxist Leninists as you've studied and experienced them. To be clear, the goal here was to offer a digestible explanation of dialectical and historical materialism which I think Prof Wolff provides. It was not a blanket endorsement of his analysis or understanding of socialism. I recommend you visit the earlier BLM discussion when Prof Wolff was a guest to dig into this more. You might find me in the chat making similar critiques to the ones you outlined here.
Marx and Stalin were juxtaposed because Stalin articulated a formal explanation of dialectical materialism in 1938. Our aim was to explain the concept itself not trace the historical paths of various Marxist movements and thinkers (I even specifically avoided the term Marxism for most of this).
Regarding Luna, again putting the individual aside, my goal is to find sources that explain the dialectical materialist method. Her and her comrades translated a text from the Vietnamese Ministry of Education meaning she isn't the author. In fact, she discusses how the book is a standard part of Vietnamese education curriculum that she took for granted when she in school. Your critique of her application of Marxism is separate from the context behind the book's creation. If you have critiques, it'd be more helpful for our program for you to focus on the text itself, whether that be content or implementation. Additionally, we challenge audience members to offer your own sources that you enjoy. We're open to all. Study is a collective practice.
Finally, while you focused on Wolff and Luna in your response, please remember that I grounded this discussion on Black Liberation Media with African revolutionaries who practiced and theorized dialectical materialism. Rodney, Cabral, Nkrumah, Alkalimat, Clarke, Sundiata, Ture, Assata, and Dhoruba bin-Wahad were all explicitly mentioned. Next to the Vietnamese textbook is the Black Liberation Army Study Guide we pulled from. You stated you were "suspicious" of where we were going but didn't mention a single African scholar in your response.
@@joshuaingram6732 Thanks for the clarification. My beef with those people aside I did find it to be a useful discussion and can appreciate how carefully you used their content. Since I ended my post early in the video (I tend to write a lot and there are length constraints) I didn't add that, over all, the discussion was good. I should have edited it afterwards to reflect that.
I particularly enjoyed the breakdown and response to that 90s interview. Anyway, thanks again. It WAS good content.
✊🏾✌🏾
I think she could have challenged the validity of separation of church and state a little more. The doctrine of discovery popped up in my head, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg invoked it in a Supreme Court ruling which I get was way after this.