"Expanding capital not for a better service or product but purely for capital". Mate, thats destilled Mark Fisher down to something so poignant - honestly its a beautiful quote (nb: quote obvs not verbatim). I remeber watching some old food documentary about pastry shops in on France and how they'd operate one pastry shop for decades - the head pastry chef/baker would take on new apprentices every so often. The product was obviously tasty as hell, but the sheer craft and passion from the workers was a sight to behold. It just reminded me of the mercantilism and how the shop didnt pursue capital for just capital's sake, it pursued a product that was very very good and very very desirable. This is quite rare nowadays in western economies. The point about how neoliberalism just constantly burdens the individual and blames them and then isolates them is so salient. Imagine: isolated, feeling on your own, everyone around you is busy working, you're reduced to a commodity; constantly judged (or at least paranoid about) on your added-value, this 24-7 switched on constant pressure and expectation on you, with community, civil society, family, friends all being noncontactable and or redundant due to thr focus on 'individualism'.
@@brian5001 "Expanding capital not for a better service or product but purely for capital" = capitalism (it's in the name!) Capitalism is production for profit, not for human need. Marx said in Capital "... As the conscious representative of this movement, the possessor of money becomes a capitalist. His person, or rather his pocket, is the point from which the money starts and to which it returns. The expansion of value, which is the objective basis or main-spring of the circulation M-C-M, becomes his subjective aim, and it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist, that is, as capital personified and endowed with consciousness and a will. ..." (Capital Vol. One, Part II: The Transformation of Money into Capital, Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital, Karl Marx 1867) ---- The necessity for socialism arises out of the inevitable escalating breakdowns of capitalism. Two world wars last century weren't enough, now we face World War Three and the use of nuclear weapons. Why? Because the interests of the US capitalist class (whose existence liberal ontology denies is even possible) seeks to maintain its hegemony over the world economy through a fight in the one domain in which it still holds superiority: military force. The other responses to capitalist breakdown are austerity (make the workers pay) and dictatorship (crush the threat of revolution.) Let those liberal defenders of capitalism who say world war has nothing to do with the struggle for markets and resources, with the basic economic organisation of society, make their case. We don't have much time though, nuclear war is looming. ----- What does Fisher's concept of "capitalist realism" add that wasn't already expressed 179 years ago in the following: "Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" (The German Ideology, Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook B. The Illusion of the Epoch, Karl Marx 1845") --- at 1:28 the video says "capitalism may not be great but at least it isn't the Marxism of the 20th century". What Marxism is he talking about? The great lie of Stalinism and its reactionary utopian theory of socialism-in-one-country is that they were Marxists. The great lie has been repeated by Stalinists, Maoists, pseudo-left, conservatives, liberals, imperialists. Even sensible people have been so saturated with it they take it for granted as true. Lenin had insisted the fate of the Soviet Union depend on its extension to a country with a higher productivity of labor. He, like Marx, was a materialist who said the organisation of society was based on the output of labor. This was so uncontroversial that even after Lenin died in January 1924, Stalin wrote in his "The Foundations of Leninism "... The chief task, the organization of socialist production, still lies ahead. Can this task be performed, can the final victory of socialism be gained, in one country alone, and without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several of the most advanced countries? No, this is out of the question. ..." (April 1924) By the end of the same year he revised the text in the next edition to read as follows: “Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society.” "No, this is out of the question" VERUS "can and must". The difference is clear to anyone willing to look. ^ We should also note that Marx and Engels in 1848 concluded the Manifesto of the Communist Party with the words "WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!" (The Stalinist revision of this would be "Working men of each country, unite with each other and then look across your borders." Given all their other falsifications of history it is probably because it was so well known that they didn't bother changing it.)
@@brian5001 What does “honesty” have to do with it? It’s not a question of virtue but self interest. For the working class to defend its interests it is compelled to overthrow capitalism. For the capitalist classes, rooted in the nation state, to defend their interests they must go to war, including nuclear war. Struggle will decide. How is pointing nuclear weapons at each other is correctable withing the current political system?
I just completed a tutoring gig yesterday for a company that contracts with school districts. I felt the entire thing was fairly useless for the students, and I was shocked at the callousness of the company's management: their only concern was keeping the security of the materials intact and recording the proper matrices to satisfy the district to keep the contract. The kids were seen solely as objects of profit. When I expressed my concerns, I was first ignored, then finally ruthlessly silenced. I took it all as fairly evil--I felt more like a camp guard than educator--but I realize now that the management was simply following the inexorable logic of orofit.
Yep school systems are now day care for workers!!! Think about it after the Rona when schools were closed. Some people were flustered and then complained how day care was expensive. It’s like hmm inflation resulting from a private central bank and the government printing tons of money was textbook inflation haha. But ya kids at school is how the government helps workers be more productive and probably helps indoctrinate and perpetuate the system. Like in Utah they have black history month and teach black slavery. No one says a word or questions it. It’s like there were 50 black slaves but tens of thousands of Native American slaves owned by other native Americans and the Spanish and later settlers. Like native Americans were slavers and sold slaves but it’s never taught.
I like the video alot, but I strongly disagree with one point. Neoliberalism didn't win against comunism because it won over the hearts of the people. It does the same thing that still keeps ppl from thinking out of the box called capitalism: it floods the pockets of the losers of capitalism with instant gratitication and the winners have no insentive to question the system that makes them the winner. The streets of eastern Germany in 1990-2000 were filled with alcoholics that lost their job and with it their participation in society. Did it matter that society failed on them? No, it's the individuals responsibility and they themselves are to tranqeulised and ashamed to stand up for themselves.
@DianaStevens42 what exactly was not understandable? I am not a native English speaker. My point is "capitalism and neo liberalism never convinced people that it is a good system. It just gives tons of egoistic and nihilistic rewards. The winners love it because they profit and the losers get silenced and disarmed with drugs."
Well a counter point to that is that a lot of people left soviet to go to the US in search of luxury products. Like there was a common thing for people to think everyone in US has a car so their system must be better. But once they arrived in US they lost all the benefits they took for granted like health care, housing and secure employment. Neoliberalism basically won because of better marketing.
@@ns1extreme I mean considering the amount of people we are talking about here, where even one individual has multiple reasons, the reasons for millions of people are even more diverse. I don't disagree with you however the way you describe it, isn't it the same thing as what I am talking about? The lower classes getting baited but in the end being trapped in the lower classes is the same as the communist state collapsing and people getting trapped in the lower classes. What leads to the trap does not really matter, does it? It's the trap that keeps them in the system.
Could we say that Brave New World--here--was more attractive than 1984--there--but the end result of concentrated power is roughly the same, with the vast majority towing the line and kept docile with bread and circuses?
Não sei ou entendi o que você quiz ou quer dizer com: ajudando o algoritmo! Mas aproveito pra lançar uma pergunta que me ocorre já antes dos últimos 20/30 anos: o capitalismo e o sistema economico-politico-psicologico-moral-etc. em que a matéria prima de sua produção é consumo somos nós mesmos num processo circular, tipo armadilha inescapavel, de que o algoritmo é a mediação fatal, sem escapatória? Essa sensação me veio de consumidor compulsivo de cinema e telenovelas quando me dei conta de que ambos me surprendiam sempre por encenaram justamente minhas mais recentes expectativas! Ah!, e o que penso, sinto, sofro que estão me roubando... sem me pagar...
Richard Wolff and Democracy at Work have a good take on this. If we had democracy in the workplace, in general, people wouldn't vote against their 34:36 . If we preach and promote democracy everywhere, why not the workplace? It is the place that most adults spend most of their time outside of the home.
Thank you for your time, effort, and hard work in presenting different, relevant, and significant perspectives on your show. I am gaining and learning new worldviews from your episodes.
Great episode. Resonates so much with the situation in the UK under the Thatcher government. Destroy collectivism of the trade unions and communities, no such thing as society, primacy to individual aspiration to wealth at all costs. Not conspiracy but open policy.
Really enjoyed your appearance at Alex O' Connor's show. I've been listening to your podcast a long time before I started following him and It was the very first time I could see you and not only hear you :)
Dunbar number. We aren't constructed to be happy imagining ourselves as members of all 8BB person society. We are built to live among a local group of about 100 people whose names we know and lives we are intertwined with. We need larger structures but we mostly need family and local communities.
Thanks for this amazing video-your quality of commentary and asides always amaze me! I have much respect for your ability to help disburse such philosophical and political views to such a large audience. Keep up the amazing work! ❤
An episode on Nick Land would be really cool too! He was the leader of a collective of thinkers of Warwick University together with Mark Fisher called the CCRU where they fused cyberpunk and gothic aesthetic with cybernetics and neo-marxist, dark deleuze-guattarian and nihilist philosophies to found accelerationism. It's a really interesting cultural phenomenon protagonised by early Nick Land (I don't want to talk about his later/current period 😭).
I think Foucault's analysis of neoliberalism is much more precise where he connects it to governance practices. Reagan and Thatcher were not business leaders, they were political leaders who wanted to gain and hold power. And they certainly did not preach competition for its own sake - they built a conceptual framework which explained how competition is supposed to be beneficial for everyone. They spoke in terms of policies and judicial frameworks. And they used the terms like "human capital" to explain the connection between individual desire for success and improvement and the quality of life of the population in general. In semi-marxist terms we could say neoliberalism is in a way not the ideology of the capitalist class but rather of the bureaucratic class and it's exactly here where the connection between neoliberals and social democrats is made - they are sort of two parts of the new political infrastructure formed by this new form of "governmentality".
the great lie in all of this is to idealize capitalism in the original Adam Smith concepts of independent tradespeople competing in open markets, whereas the reality consists of huge "trusts" that tend to monopolize or control both markets and buy politics
Stephen, they're taking down Google Podcast on June 23rd! Soon, we will only be able to get to your good stuff on Spotify, which is a platform I'm trying to avoid, actually. Can you please update and reorder your catalog on TH-cam Music? It's incomplete and out of order. Love you and what you do ❤
Great video breaking down the positives and negatives of Neoliberalism. Personally I think the one only route worth pursuing it very much constant balance where government and markets work together to create a system that helps everyone, not just people deemed ‘high’ value.
In that government can be in the way of markets - without some regulation protecting resources and environment - we would have thoroughly damaged or eliminated the ideas of conservation, wildlife management, pollution, and so on. These things require regulation because humans consume until a resource lands on "0" and is no longer available, in spite of the consequences. The destruction of environment and biosphere has occurred time and again, and will continue where there are no regulatory laws and enforcement of said laws. We are a long way from a truly egalitarian social order, but like to claim all is fair if not equal, because hey, individual, we don't want to hear about your issues - they're your issues not mine, so pull yourself up by the bootstraps and do what you need to do! We live far from any type of utopian social order, why would we expect neo liberalism will bring us closer? It won't. Our social order is hardly united and agreeable, and can it ever be? Seems quite unlikely this day and age.
We've literally run out of time. Even if we could "come together", which we can not, the earth (our very mother who raised us in the spiritual hope of realizing our interconnectedness) will soon shrug us off.
After I read some books like creature from Jekyll island or Us monetary history by Murray Rothbard it changed my thinking. College and mainstream teaches a persons wealth is the nominal number. I remember some good Christian teachers that taught paying the estate tax is good because we don’t want aristocracy. But now years later I’m like hmm. Half of the issue is never never talked about which is money supply or printing and privately owned central banks. Who cares if a guy appears rich by owning land when in reality the land went up in price cause banks and government printed more money? If it’s the same land it’s the same. An ounce of gold or copper etc is still one ounce. Yet gold etc went from the fixed price of $35 to like $2400 today over the last few decades. The monetary system does matter. Capitalism where there’s no central banks and workers are paid in gold and silver money so they can’t be robbed by inflation or theft of purchasing power is a way way different system then the alleged capitalism we have today.
Remember Thomas Jefferson also promoted capitalism where there’s a small government and no privately owned central bank but the individual is protected. Alexander Hamilton wanted private central banks and big government and less individual protection. Just cause you use the word capitalism doesn’t mean your statement applies to all capitalism forms. The central bank is privately owned and the federal reserve pays a 6% dividend to Wall Street. But remember the federal reserve is the third central bank in the U.S. Capitalism existed before there were central banks. Capitalism existed when gold and silver were money, too.
@@koltoncrane3099 Generally socialists conflate the modern statist system with capitalism. If we want to be clear we can say laissez-faire. The popular discourse has been captured by the statists. Even the words we use have been redefined. The price inflation vs. inflation of the money supply issue is another good example.
I’m not sure I’m on point, but: you talk about conspiracy theorists as in not good, and also blaming people for not seeing the structures making bad outcome. I myself have been paranoid, and I know a number of people quite paranoid. If you paranoid all you can see is a structure. It doesn’t matter if you see a newly borne or a sunrise. I come to think that to see the world as structure is pathological. Thanks for the talk I’m probably gonna think on it for some time!
I'm looking forward to those episodes on solutions from within capitalism. Pigou recommended pollution fees or taxes more than 100 years ago. If fee proceeds are shared equally, the policy will be fair and will end abject poverty.
The history of the Mount Pelerin Society would be illustrative here. Hayek and Mises were sidelined. There's a reason why neoliberalism isn't simply called liberalism. It was an attempted synthesis where the statist faction prevailed.
As someone who's basically gotten from left-wing to neoliberalism, I hoped you'd argue against neoliberalism. There were some bits where you used condemning tone of voice or such but nothing that seemed to be super relevant. There's also the "gdp doesn't benefit people", which you present without evidence, and even tho it's meant as a strawman of "economic prosperity doesn't consistently improve living conditions of everyone", I'd still be willing to defend the strawman to an extent
0:48 *Degrowth communism* as alternative to capitalist illogic of endless growth. Jason Hickel and Kohei Saito have good ideas here around shifting away from our erroneous GDP based index and decommodifying the core economy to orient production on meeting basic needs of people. Which means more life for normal people, universal education and healthcare, more healthy food/water/land, less work that is more meaningful and more time to spend building family and community relationships.
Ya know, I grew up in a cult, learned what it did to me and that capitalism does the same things to people. And have learned a little of what capitalism is, it's current components etc. I think I'm going to run for president in about 10 years when I'm old enough! I'll spearhead the revolution. Y'all keep talking and let me listen and learn. I've listened to thousands of hours of this type of stuff and learned a lot, but I got a lot more to learn. Thanks for this information.
Strangely enough Soviet planned economy system was criticized fir what here is called "audit culture" - substitution of real progress by good looking reports to Gosplan.
Another great episode, tho I am running several months behind. On hearing of Fisher's work on depression, can I recommend the following: "Sedated:How Modern Capitalism Created our Mental Health Crisis" by James Davies which I am currently reading, well devouring, and thoroughly enjoying. Loving you work, Sir.
Learned from this vid that Fisher died. Shame. Liked the video. I think you could have emphasized externalities as understood by economics but maybe this isn’t something Fisher didn’t cover as much? I’ve really only heard soundbites from him. I’ll prioritize reading him shortly. There was a schism in economics in the 50s/60s about public goods and externalities and the role governments should play in addressing them. Mainstream consensus is that there is a role for government to address these problems but the other side of the debate I think captured the popular imagination of what economics is. The externality question makes the problem of a self regulating capitalism a huge deal. If you go back to the gilded age or even today there’s a reason why deception, hiding pollution, hiding harms, is rewarded. The story about the radium girls or Thomas Midgely pushing leaded gasoline doesn’t sound that different from the Sackler family pushing opioids on an entire country or Facebook knowingly tweeting their algorithms in a way that makes teenage girls suicidal.
I believe in a government for the people, delivering what the people need and want. Basic Housing, Basic Food, Basic Transportation, Basic Healthcare. Public options. The government should get out of the 'regulation business' in lieu of providing basic needs. People who want more than the basics will work for more. Corporations not addressing the needs of customers will fail. If the majority of people in the US want just the basics, then that should be reflected in a government that provides what is wanted by the people they represent. If we can't get past nationalism based on ethnicity and geography, then maybe our nations should be organized around the goals and values of their citizens.
Main argument for Neoliberalism is freedom and effeciency. I guess the criticue could be concentrated on them. Freedom and efficiency is not equally distributed.
You are not alone. My gut tells me there are more of us, than the others. The US gives us two false, extremes of Conservatism vs. Progressivism and they use this polarity to preserve power.
The great depression was a direct result of federal reserve policy. And it did have the effect they hoped, all the business heads got filthy rich. It still happens today, twice in my lifetime. Most recently in 2020.
If you do not govern the market and you will get slavery. Because slavery is the cheapest and most profitable form of business. In a way, we already have slavery. 🤔 You can quit your job. But you need money. So good luck finding a better employer before your savings run dry. But if you don't have any savings, well, too bad. And if you can't build savings because you chose the wrong career path, well, too bad. On the other hand, if government is meant stay out of the market, then the market must not be protected by the government either. So, no police will be there in case of burglary. And if an angry employee sets his office on fire, there will be no governmental law to handle the situation. Employers must pay their own police. And since government makes the law and the law can not tough businesses, the employer also needs to deal with all that too. Basically there can not be a single small business. Only the already mega filthy greedy rich corporations are powerful enough to sustain them self without the government. Hence the neo liberals will say that we obviously need both. Yes, cherry picking. And the mega filthy greedy rich get to decide on the cherries they take. Total regulation of corpos is a taboo because China. People are hyper allergic to even theorize over it. They simply somewhere heard that China is bad and everything from there is bad. And in logical consequence heavily governed markets must too be bad. There can not be a nuance to it. I read it on a meme, and it was funny, so it must be true.
Enjoyed listening to this one! Lively debate with a little right and wrong on each side. (Any philosophy that emphasizes the individual and his/her freedom is A-OK with me. Give me JS Mill any day. I've seen the opposite on the other side of "the Curtain," and it's soul-crushing ... so, yes, I'm biased ... but so are we all.)
There are two major problems with replacing capitalism: economic thinkers have failed to develop the required economic theory, and the system's underlying logic (growth, no limits, etc.) is consistent with human nature. To address the first I have developed a theory called the Economics of Needs and Limits (ENL). The second is unresolvable, which is why I believe that a global takeover by advanced AIs will be needed to avoid ecological collapse.
@@Inspiredkey.poetry I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective. Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality. I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments. Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid. Your Judges are idiots. Your entire civilization is a delusion. Don't even get me started on the symbols at its core. There is a specific flower established in Western Civ as the central symbol of your Pillar Capital orders, from the City of David (likely earlier as well, possibly as early as the establishment of Griffins at Knossos and perhaps earlier as the winged protective deities of Mesopotamian art) through the Corinthian Order, and it is going to utterly destroy everything. So much murder. So much racism. So much injustice. And no free will anywhere to be seen.
@@Inspiredkey.poetry I tried to respond earlier, but I am one of the most censored people on the internet. lol I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective. Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality. I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments. Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid. Your Judges are idiots. Your entire civilization is a delusion.
@@Inspiredkey.poetry I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective. Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality. I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments. Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid. They hate the Truth.
@@Inspiredkey.poetry Sorry, I'm supercensored or something lol EDIT: I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective. Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality. I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments. Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid. They hate the Truth.
Can anyone recommend a good book that expands on this problem? One that really examines the concept explored at the end around scrutinizing a system that may be the cause here but there's not a strong way to deal with it?
applying classical liberal ideas to economics wouldn't lead to capitalism. ideas like individual sovereignty and Locke's labor theory of property (he supports the commons and labor is what grants the right to extract property from the commons. thomas jefferson would reiterate the commons, when he states the earth is owned by all man in usufruct) are actually undermined by capitalism through contradiction. labor, for instance, sells their sovereignty for less than the value of the product they create (the important part is they sell it), and the very notion that grants the capitalist the capital is denied the laborer simply because he's using the capitalist's capital. from state Socialism and Anarchism by Benjamin Tucker: From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price - or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price - these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, - interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly. what he's arguing against is the idea of investing capital in place of labor, because he's saying that that capital is already the payment in full. Tucker was an Individualist Anarchist, which he says are "unterrified Jeffersonians". Jefferson criticizes capitalism as a system that creates class, dependence, and violates natural law by extending property rights so far as to exclude the majority from owning any. he all but outright calls it wage slavery. he says wage labor is dangerous to the republic, mostly because it'll end up being an oligarchy, a corruption of republican ideals where the economic elite rule, like Carthage (he would use a term like "financiers"). Tucker espouses Proudonian Mutualism, which is in agreement with Ricardian (or Smithian) socialism, where the workers own the means of production they are using in the form of worker cooperatives. Proudhon echoes Smith's notion of landlords "reaping where they haven't sown" by applying it all of capital. hence capitalist capital means "property is theft". Mutualism (mondragon was built on mutualist principles) sees a society of individual artisans and worker cooperatives, where the individual either makes their own decisions regarding their own work or through consensus when in conjunction with other individuals. where the capitalist ignores Locke's proviso, the mutualist fulfills it through "occupancy and use norms"....meaning what isn't allowed is absentee property that is necessary for things like landlordism. Locke--->Jefferson---->Tucker---->Proudhon. Classical Liberalism's logical conclusion is a form of Libertarian Socialism. Noam Chomsky made a presentation in the 70s that explains how Classical Liberalism's principles lead to Libertarian Socialism (although he's more of a descendent of Bakunin). he cites people like John Dewey and Wilhelm Von Humholdt. It's called Government of the Future and it's found here: th-cam.com/video/SnfioOtrBro/w-d-xo.html
Its easy to think beyond capitalism. The problem is people won't give up their creature comforts to get there. Also the revolutionary interim period attracts the ambitions of tyrants that corrupt the movement and soil its reputation beyond repair.
Looking forward to ideas for next steps because ultimately individuals with power will have to be accountable for their actions as judged by the greater community. When has that worked out well? Beyond never……
I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this? Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end. It keeps going round in circles. One has to look through the phenomenological lens in the correct manner if they want beyond this primitive, half developed monkey head paradigm but who’s really ready for that path. If you want to understand the modes - TH-cam - new paradigm fish by Yap. Stripping it right back part 1. Alternatively- read my work for free on medium. New paradigm fish Yap.
Oh now I found your podcast on TH-cam and finally I can comment on your podcast haha. I don't know if capitalism as an economical system is the problem in why people are getting lonely. I think the state undermines and creates isolation. Think with me: if we know that the state should take care on my neighbor, then why should I care? I'm a 100% capitalist but also libertarian. Still I love your podcast.
I think a lot of people believe certain beliefs that lean towards conspiracy is for the tendency of those that have everything and the only thing left is to toy with people's lives I guess maybe that's why they act like they do? I don't know, I'm not omniscient.
I agree with the podcast in that the neo libertarian, Milton Friedman, we don’t need no government rhetoric is cringe and ultimately offensive. This libertarian turn really explains why Mitt Romney conservatism failed in America and why Trumpism was an inevitable development on the American Right. Their electorate was being ignored while Americas corporations internationalized and embraced radical individualism, making society outright hostile to their voting base. Line go up or economic growth for the sake of economic growth can never be the governing ideology of a people. They will betray themselves for money.
18:39 so far so good, but I want to pause here and say that your representation here of the way to fulfillment or achivement is through self-commoditization and consumerism. That is one culture of capitalism, but certainly not all. For example, if I want a shed, the only way I can get a shed is to sell myself for more and take that money and pay someone else to build a shed? No. I could absolutely build it myself. I could get family or friends to help me. I could hew the boards myself to try to save money on lumber at the expense of time. Maybe someone has leftover hardware they would be willing to trade for my old unused vaccume cleaner. This is all capitalism without consumerism. To conflate the two is inaccurate. (But maybe you acknowledge this later in the video. You have been doing a great job up to this point at presenting different sides quite fairly)
22:26 minimizing government intervention leads to greater use of government by corporations as a market intervention tool? The logic here doesnt seem to hold, nor do real world examples. As the regulatory power of the US has expanded, so too has the special interests' time and energy investment. As it becomes a bigger and bigger access point to market control, it becomes a more important target for the rich and well connected.
25:50 okay, maybe I cant put myself into the neoliberal mindset; I am too stuck in the classical liberal way of thinking. But the discription you just gave of an employee net being a bad employee even though they arent doing work...no. That is a bad employee. If your employment with the company nets the company less value than the cost of your paycheck, you are costing the company money. That is not a benifit to them, and the fact that you lie about the work doesnt make you "just smart". It makes you a liar. Imagine if someone paid you to fix their door, and you never got the job done but still expected pay every day you showed up. You are just really good at convincing them that you just need a couple more pieces of hardware. Check please. Are you just a "smart" door repair man? No! You are a charlatan. You are not benifiting the people you are exchanging with, but extracting wealth from them. That isnt capitalism.
32:49 why the mental health issues? Because the generations were born into a world where they were told that they would have to defeat great evils...yet most all the great evils could not be found within the area any longer. Because we were raised that to suffer discomfort is harm, and so we become weak and brittle. Because we were raised by government schools. Because we were never taught how to do things for ourselves, and so we feel trapped into having to pay others to do things for us. Because the internet allows for us to communicate more with people a million miles away than to spend time with people across the street. This isn't a failure of rugged individualism. It doesnt even track with the rise of American individualism. It tracks with modern tech, modern culture, modern ineptitude, and modern expectations.
When you lean too much into the structural aspect of these problems, you create a blind spot for the people who CREATED these structures INTENTIONALLY. We have a blind spot for narcissists and psychopaths and sociopaths, who are actively looking for excuses to treat other people as commodities and will strive to create structures that allow them to do this. They are looking for excuses to not take responsibility for the impact they have on the world and will strive to create structures that absolve them of any responsibility. Think of the boss who denies pay rises to their poverty stricken workforce with the excuse "you don't produce enough value", basing their assessment not on the value created, but market rates for labour. Then they go out and buy a 4th Ferrari with record profits. The workforce DO produce enough value, which is why the boss had record profits to spend on yet another Ferrari, but the boss doesn't want to take responsibility for creating poverty with their own decisions, so they blame the market.
I'm of the firm belief that the major problem with society is this black and white view of the world - that somehow capitalism is good and socialism is bad. I think it is a matter of choosing the correct system to align with your goals. For example: Is the goal to make money and advance industry? Capitalism is a good choice. Is your goal to increase a population's health? Capitalism is probably the wrong way to go, as the financial incentive increases with the number of sick people. Absolute idealism is narrow sighted
"Why we can't think beyond capitalism". Man, I hate that title so much. I have little trouble thinking beyond capitalism, and none whatsoever when I confine myself to the dystopian side of the fence. It's incredibly easy to do worse, and if you attempt to do better linking arms with people who don't understand this, it's almost a _certainty_ that you will do worse. From this perspective, denigrating capitalism is the least productive move away from capitalism. Beauty is truth and truth is beauty, and that's all you need to know-so long as you _also_ understand that ugliness is often just truth you don't fully understand yet. Capitalism is not so ugly that any damn thing that sounds good is an obvious improvement.
Bollocks my friend! What about if it is philosophy it self that it's terrible and deeply depressed long ago... unable to transform the world, unable to think it, Totally unfertile and rather aside and marginal... unable to grasp the thing itself but also unmatch to theorize it. Surpassed in the day to day world by the practical disciplines and also dumb in solving things.... what if...?
"Expanding capital not for a better service or product but purely for capital".
Mate, thats destilled Mark Fisher down to something so poignant - honestly its a beautiful quote (nb: quote obvs not verbatim).
I remeber watching some old food documentary about pastry shops in on France and how they'd operate one pastry shop for decades - the head pastry chef/baker would take on new apprentices every so often. The product was obviously tasty as hell, but the sheer craft and passion from the workers was a sight to behold. It just reminded me of the mercantilism and how the shop didnt pursue capital for just capital's sake, it pursued a product that was very very good and very very desirable. This is quite rare nowadays in western economies.
The point about how neoliberalism just constantly burdens the individual and blames them and then isolates them is so salient. Imagine: isolated, feeling on your own, everyone around you is busy working, you're reduced to a commodity; constantly judged (or at least paranoid about) on your added-value, this 24-7 switched on constant pressure and expectation on you, with community, civil society, family, friends all being noncontactable and or redundant due to thr focus on 'individualism'.
@@brian5001 "Expanding capital not for a better service or product but purely for capital" = capitalism (it's in the name!) Capitalism is production for profit, not for human need.
Marx said in Capital
"... As the conscious representative of this movement, the possessor of money becomes a capitalist. His person, or rather his pocket, is the point from which the money starts and to which it returns. The expansion of value, which is the objective basis or main-spring of the circulation M-C-M, becomes his subjective aim, and it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist, that is, as capital personified and endowed with consciousness and a will. ..." (Capital Vol. One, Part II: The Transformation of Money into Capital, Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital, Karl Marx 1867)
----
The necessity for socialism arises out of the inevitable escalating breakdowns of capitalism. Two world wars last century weren't enough, now we face World War Three and the use of nuclear weapons. Why? Because the interests of the US capitalist class (whose existence liberal ontology denies is even possible) seeks to maintain its hegemony over the world economy through a fight in the one domain in which it still holds superiority: military force. The other responses to capitalist breakdown are austerity (make the workers pay) and dictatorship (crush the threat of revolution.)
Let those liberal defenders of capitalism who say world war has nothing to do with the struggle for markets and resources, with the basic economic organisation of society, make their case. We don't have much time though, nuclear war is looming.
-----
What does Fisher's concept of "capitalist realism" add that wasn't already expressed 179 years ago in the following:
"Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'"
(The German Ideology, Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook B. The Illusion of the Epoch, Karl Marx 1845")
---
at 1:28 the video says "capitalism may not be great but at least it isn't the Marxism of the 20th century". What Marxism is he talking about? The great lie of Stalinism and its reactionary utopian theory of socialism-in-one-country is that they were Marxists. The great lie has been repeated by Stalinists, Maoists, pseudo-left, conservatives, liberals, imperialists. Even sensible people have been so saturated with it they take it for granted as true.
Lenin had insisted the fate of the Soviet Union depend on its extension to a country with a higher productivity of labor. He, like Marx, was a materialist who said the organisation of society was based on the output of labor. This was so uncontroversial that even after Lenin died in January 1924, Stalin wrote in his "The Foundations of Leninism "... The chief task, the organization of socialist production, still lies ahead. Can this task be performed, can the final victory of socialism be gained, in one country alone, and without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several of the most advanced countries? No, this is out of the question. ..." (April 1924)
By the end of the same year he revised the text in the next edition to read as follows: “Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society.”
"No, this is out of the question" VERUS "can and must". The difference is clear to anyone willing to look.
^ We should also note that Marx and Engels in 1848 concluded the Manifesto of the Communist Party with the words "WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!" (The Stalinist revision of this would be "Working men of each country, unite with each other and then look across your borders." Given all their other falsifications of history it is probably because it was so well known that they didn't bother changing it.)
@@brian5001 What does “honesty” have to do with it? It’s not a question of virtue but self interest. For the working class to defend its interests it is compelled to overthrow capitalism.
For the capitalist classes, rooted in the nation state, to defend their interests they must go to war, including nuclear war. Struggle will decide.
How is pointing nuclear weapons at each other is correctable withing the current political system?
I just completed a tutoring gig yesterday for a company that contracts with school districts. I felt the entire thing was fairly useless for the students, and I was shocked at the callousness of the company's management: their only concern was keeping the security of the materials intact and recording the proper matrices to satisfy the district to keep the contract. The kids were seen solely as objects of profit. When I expressed my concerns, I was first ignored, then finally ruthlessly silenced. I took it all as fairly evil--I felt more like a camp guard than educator--but I realize now that the management was simply following the inexorable logic of orofit.
Orofit over Profit!!
The whole idea of factory education is a factory education, isn't it? A system is best understood by what it produces (rather than its claims).
Holy shit I had the same experience with my gig. It's a sad realization and you feel so helpless alongside the kids who are turned into profit motives
What is the company name? I’d like to avoid it
Yep school systems are now day care for workers!!! Think about it after the Rona when schools were closed. Some people were flustered and then complained how day care was expensive. It’s like hmm inflation resulting from a private central bank and the government printing tons of money was textbook inflation haha. But ya kids at school is how the government helps workers be more productive and probably helps indoctrinate and perpetuate the system.
Like in Utah they have black history month and teach black slavery. No one says a word or questions it. It’s like there were 50 black slaves but tens of thousands of Native American slaves owned by other native Americans and the Spanish and later settlers. Like native Americans were slavers and sold slaves but it’s never taught.
I like the video alot, but I strongly disagree with one point. Neoliberalism didn't win against comunism because it won over the hearts of the people. It does the same thing that still keeps ppl from thinking out of the box called capitalism: it floods the pockets of the losers of capitalism with instant gratitication and the winners have no insentive to question the system that makes them the winner. The streets of eastern Germany in 1990-2000 were filled with alcoholics that lost their job and with it their participation in society. Did it matter that society failed on them? No, it's the individuals responsibility and they themselves are to tranqeulised and ashamed to stand up for themselves.
@DianaStevens42 what exactly was not understandable? I am not a native English speaker. My point is "capitalism and neo liberalism never convinced people that it is a good system. It just gives tons of egoistic and nihilistic rewards. The winners love it because they profit and the losers get silenced and disarmed with drugs."
Well a counter point to that is that a lot of people left soviet to go to the US in search of luxury products. Like there was a common thing for people to think everyone in US has a car so their system must be better. But once they arrived in US they lost all the benefits they took for granted like health care, housing and secure employment. Neoliberalism basically won because of better marketing.
@@ns1extreme I mean considering the amount of people we are talking about here, where even one individual has multiple reasons, the reasons for millions of people are even more diverse. I don't disagree with you however the way you describe it, isn't it the same thing as what I am talking about? The lower classes getting baited but in the end being trapped in the lower classes is the same as the communist state collapsing and people getting trapped in the lower classes. What leads to the trap does not really matter, does it? It's the trap that keeps them in the system.
Could we say that Brave New World--here--was more attractive than 1984--there--but the end result of concentrated power is roughly the same, with the vast majority towing the line and kept docile with bread and circuses?
Didn't see you american pinkos filling the food shelves in 1980s USSR, and I doubt *you* were sending the humanitarian aid in the 1990s.
You're an absolute KING for covering this! This is the episode that convinced me to finally join your Patreon :)
Hey, thanks! Next episode will be a necessary companion to this one.
Just helping the algorithm
Can't wait to dive in!
Não sei ou entendi o que você quiz ou quer dizer com: ajudando o algoritmo! Mas aproveito pra lançar uma pergunta que me ocorre já antes dos últimos 20/30 anos: o capitalismo e o sistema economico-politico-psicologico-moral-etc. em que a matéria prima de sua produção é consumo somos nós mesmos num processo circular, tipo armadilha inescapavel, de que o algoritmo é a mediação fatal, sem escapatória?
Essa sensação me veio de consumidor compulsivo de cinema e telenovelas quando me dei conta de que ambos me surprendiam sempre por encenaram justamente minhas mais recentes expectativas!
Ah!, e o que penso, sinto, sofro que estão me roubando... sem me pagar...
Richard Wolff and Democracy at Work have a good take on this. If we had democracy in the workplace, in general, people wouldn't vote against their 34:36 . If we preach and promote democracy everywhere, why not the workplace? It is the place that most adults spend most of their time outside of the home.
what a special time to be alive. rip mr fisher 🙏
Thank you for your time, effort, and hard work in presenting different, relevant, and significant perspectives on your show. I am gaining and learning new worldviews from your episodes.
Thank you Steven! Ive been waiting for an episode on Mark Fisher since you started talking about Byong Chul Han and Zizek, huge appreciation
Great episode. Resonates so much with the situation in the UK under the Thatcher government. Destroy collectivism of the trade unions and communities, no such thing as society, primacy to individual aspiration to wealth at all costs. Not conspiracy but open policy.
Really enjoyed your appearance at Alex O' Connor's show. I've been listening to your podcast a long time before I started following him and It was the very first time I could see you and not only hear you :)
Fantastic commentary ! Thank you for mentioning mental illness, 2008 crash, and productivity at work as consequences of neoliberalism
Hey algorithm! Bump this!
No way! Just found you from Alex and you’re doing mark fisher let’s goooo
Dunbar number. We aren't constructed to be happy imagining ourselves as members of all 8BB person society. We are built to live among a local group of about 100 people whose names we know and lives we are intertwined with. We need larger structures but we mostly need family and local communities.
And traditional belief systems that are respected by the broader society.
@@stanleyshannon4408 Because why?
Been awhile since I tune into the podcast and wow... Why did I ever stop? What an incredible episode.
Thanks for this amazing video-your quality of commentary and asides always amaze me! I have much respect for your ability to help disburse such philosophical and political views to such a large audience. Keep up the amazing work! ❤
An episode on Nick Land would be really cool too! He was the leader of a collective of thinkers of Warwick University together with Mark Fisher called the CCRU where they fused cyberpunk and gothic aesthetic with cybernetics and neo-marxist, dark deleuze-guattarian and nihilist philosophies to found accelerationism. It's a really interesting cultural phenomenon protagonised by early Nick Land (I don't want to talk about his later/current period 😭).
Steven is a national treasure.
Thank you for covering this!
Looking forward to the next video!
I think Foucault's analysis of neoliberalism is much more precise where he connects it to governance practices. Reagan and Thatcher were not business leaders, they were political leaders who wanted to gain and hold power. And they certainly did not preach competition for its own sake - they built a conceptual framework which explained how competition is supposed to be beneficial for everyone. They spoke in terms of policies and judicial frameworks. And they used the terms like "human capital" to explain the connection between individual desire for success and improvement and the quality of life of the population in general. In semi-marxist terms we could say neoliberalism is in a way not the ideology of the capitalist class but rather of the bureaucratic class and it's exactly here where the connection between neoliberals and social democrats is made - they are sort of two parts of the new political infrastructure formed by this new form of "governmentality".
this is such a steven west moment!
So happy to see (hear) another episode! Cheers!
the great lie in all of this is to idealize capitalism in the original Adam Smith concepts of independent tradespeople competing in open markets, whereas the reality consists of huge "trusts" that tend to monopolize or control both markets and buy politics
I was revisiting the Weil series because i neeeeeedeed more of this show! :) pretty exited to hear this one
Stephen, they're taking down Google Podcast on June 23rd! Soon, we will only be able to get to your good stuff on Spotify, which is a platform I'm trying to avoid, actually. Can you please update and reorder your catalog on TH-cam Music? It's incomplete and out of order. Love you and what you do ❤
Great video breaking down the positives and negatives of Neoliberalism. Personally I think the one only route worth pursuing it very much constant balance where government and markets work together to create a system that helps everyone, not just people deemed ‘high’ value.
This is such a dense and pithy exploration of a complex and multi-faceted issue. Really nicely executed, you got a subscriber 😎
Capitalist Realism is a must read.
Neoliberalism and Socialism do coexist. There is Neoliberalism for the many and Socialism for the few.
In that government can be in the way of markets - without some regulation protecting resources and environment - we would have thoroughly damaged or eliminated the ideas of conservation, wildlife management, pollution, and so on. These things require regulation because humans consume until a resource lands on "0" and is no longer available, in spite of the consequences.
The destruction of environment and biosphere has occurred time and again, and will continue where there are no regulatory laws and enforcement of said laws.
We are a long way from a truly egalitarian social order, but like to claim all is fair if not equal, because hey, individual, we don't want to hear about your issues - they're your issues not mine, so pull yourself up by the bootstraps and do what you need to do!
We live far from any type of utopian social order, why would we expect neo liberalism will bring us closer? It won't. Our social order is hardly united and agreeable, and can it ever be? Seems quite unlikely this day and age.
if i own a specific resource do i not also protect that resource?
@@aslkdjfzxcv9779 That would be entirely up to you.
Amazing episode, all of these recent ones are really helping me out both on an intellectual and personal level :))
I'm so happy to see this one. This book was the nail in my radicalisation journey. Hope to see more from Fisher.
Any other thinkers in that area you think are must reads for people on the level of Fisher?
We've literally run out of time. Even if we could "come together", which we can not, the earth (our very mother who raised us in the spiritual hope of realizing our interconnectedness) will soon shrug us off.
Oh dear a Mystic.
@@dwwolf4636 Mystical?... Perhaps. Sad, mostly. But is that not our lot? :)
You're asking the wrong question.
The real question should be HOW DO WE transcend capitalism?
you got any ideas besides the failed communist/socialist experiments? Let's hear them.
I loved this podcast. I now subscribe. You reminded me to go back and read Mark Fisher again. This was a great presentation of his views!
What I love about your channel is that you provide solutions or possible ways forward.
not all about the having but also about the becoming, and living with what you get
"Capitalism" is when the central bank prints its way out of a housing crisis and into more crises which rationalize further central planning...
After I read some books like creature from Jekyll island or Us monetary history by Murray Rothbard it changed my thinking.
College and mainstream teaches a persons wealth is the nominal number. I remember some good Christian teachers that taught paying the estate tax is good because we don’t want aristocracy. But now years later I’m like hmm.
Half of the issue is never never talked about which is money supply or printing and privately owned central banks.
Who cares if a guy appears rich by owning land when in reality the land went up in price cause banks and government printed more money? If it’s the same land it’s the same. An ounce of gold or copper etc is still one ounce. Yet gold etc went from the fixed price of $35 to like $2400 today over the last few decades.
The monetary system does matter. Capitalism where there’s no central banks and workers are paid in gold and silver money so they can’t be robbed by inflation or theft of purchasing power is a way way different system then the alleged capitalism we have today.
Remember Thomas Jefferson also promoted capitalism where there’s a small government and no privately owned central bank but the individual is protected. Alexander Hamilton wanted private central banks and big government and less individual protection.
Just cause you use the word capitalism doesn’t mean your statement applies to all capitalism forms. The central bank is privately owned and the federal reserve pays a 6% dividend to Wall Street. But remember the federal reserve is the third central bank in the U.S. Capitalism existed before there were central banks. Capitalism existed when gold and silver were money, too.
@@koltoncrane3099 Generally socialists conflate the modern statist system with capitalism. If we want to be clear we can say laissez-faire. The popular discourse has been captured by the statists.
Even the words we use have been redefined. The price inflation vs. inflation of the money supply issue is another good example.
I’m not sure I’m on point, but: you talk about conspiracy theorists as in not good, and also blaming people for not seeing the structures making bad outcome. I myself have been paranoid, and I know a number of people quite paranoid. If you paranoid all you can see is a structure. It doesn’t matter if you see a newly borne or a sunrise. I come to think that to see the world as structure is pathological.
Thanks for the talk I’m probably gonna think on it for some time!
Dude. I love you. 🙏
Banger episode, only complaint I have is the voice volume, it seems to be quite low, I have to turn my earphones to about 80% to listen comfortably.
Maybe it’s a technical issue on your end because it’s perfect for me.
I'm looking forward to those episodes on solutions from within capitalism.
Pigou recommended pollution fees or taxes more than 100 years ago. If fee proceeds are shared equally, the policy will be fair and will end abject poverty.
The history of the Mount Pelerin Society would be illustrative here. Hayek and Mises were sidelined. There's a reason why neoliberalism isn't simply called liberalism. It was an attempted synthesis where the statist faction prevailed.
One of your best episodes.
As someone who's basically gotten from left-wing to neoliberalism, I hoped you'd argue against neoliberalism.
There were some bits where you used condemning tone of voice or such but nothing that seemed to be super relevant. There's also the "gdp doesn't benefit people", which you present without evidence, and even tho it's meant as a strawman of "economic prosperity doesn't consistently improve living conditions of everyone", I'd still be willing to defend the strawman to an extent
Algorithm bump! Thanks for covering this :)
0:48 *Degrowth communism* as alternative to capitalist illogic of endless growth. Jason Hickel and Kohei Saito have good ideas here around shifting away from our erroneous GDP based index and decommodifying the core economy to orient production on meeting basic needs of people. Which means more life for normal people, universal education and healthcare, more healthy food/water/land, less work that is more meaningful and more time to spend building family and community relationships.
Ya know, I grew up in a cult, learned what it did to me and that capitalism does the same things to people. And have learned a little of what capitalism is, it's current components etc.
I think I'm going to run for president in about 10 years when I'm old enough! I'll spearhead the revolution. Y'all keep talking and let me listen and learn. I've listened to thousands of hours of this type of stuff and learned a lot, but I got a lot more to learn. Thanks for this information.
Thr point about not being able to easily distinguish the truth from propaganda is extremely poignant these days.
Fire podcast 🔥🔥
Grateful.
Strangely enough Soviet planned economy system was criticized fir what here is called "audit culture" - substitution of real progress by good looking reports to Gosplan.
This is pertinent for these daze!
Another great episode, tho I am running several months behind. On hearing of Fisher's work on depression, can I recommend the following: "Sedated:How Modern Capitalism Created our Mental Health Crisis" by James Davies which I am currently reading, well devouring, and thoroughly enjoying. Loving you work, Sir.
Learned from this vid that Fisher died. Shame.
Liked the video. I think you could have emphasized externalities as understood by economics but maybe this isn’t something Fisher didn’t cover as much? I’ve really only heard soundbites from him. I’ll prioritize reading him shortly.
There was a schism in economics in the 50s/60s about public goods and externalities and the role governments should play in addressing them. Mainstream consensus is that there is a role for government to address these problems but the other side of the debate I think captured the popular imagination of what economics is.
The externality question makes the problem of a self regulating capitalism a huge deal. If you go back to the gilded age or even today there’s a reason why deception, hiding pollution, hiding harms, is rewarded. The story about the radium girls or Thomas Midgely pushing leaded gasoline doesn’t sound that different from the Sackler family pushing opioids on an entire country or Facebook knowingly tweeting their algorithms in a way that makes teenage girls suicidal.
The magic bullet is Henry George's progress and poverty. It's not capital that's creating the issue. It's land.
I believe in a government for the people, delivering what the people need and want. Basic Housing, Basic Food, Basic Transportation, Basic Healthcare. Public options. The government should get out of the 'regulation business' in lieu of providing basic needs. People who want more than the basics will work for more. Corporations not addressing the needs of customers will fail. If the majority of people in the US want just the basics, then that should be reflected in a government that provides what is wanted by the people they represent. If we can't get past nationalism based on ethnicity and geography, then maybe our nations should be organized around the goals and values of their citizens.
how about dictatorship of the proletariat? (short definition: working class holds control over state power)
Excellent 👍
Main argument for Neoliberalism is freedom and effeciency. I guess the criticue could be concentrated on them. Freedom and efficiency is not equally distributed.
You are not alone. My gut tells me there are more of us, than the others. The US gives us two false, extremes of Conservatism vs. Progressivism and they use this polarity to preserve power.
The great depression was a direct result of federal reserve policy. And it did have the effect they hoped, all the business heads got filthy rich. It still happens today, twice in my lifetime. Most recently in 2020.
We already have a modified capatilism; I feel it just needs bit more tweaking...
theres a problem with free trade between two entities?
there are lots of easily misled tools who think its an issue.
capitalism reflects the underlying bioeconomic substrate. It recognizes the contact epistemological imperitive, that saying it doesn't make it so.
Very good video, eye opening for me
Great. I loved it. Waiting for the follow up. Grazie.
Super interesting video, the parts discussing mental illness and capitalism resonated with me and hit me in the gut.
Thanks Stephen. I resonate with everything you're saying
Very enjoyable
If you do not govern the market and you will get slavery.
Because slavery is the cheapest and most profitable form of business.
In a way, we already have slavery. 🤔
You can quit your job. But you need money. So good luck finding a better employer before your savings run dry.
But if you don't have any savings, well, too bad.
And if you can't build savings because you chose the wrong career path, well, too bad.
On the other hand, if government is meant stay out of the market, then the market must not be protected by the government either.
So, no police will be there in case of burglary. And if an angry employee sets his office on fire, there will be no governmental law to handle the situation.
Employers must pay their own police. And since government makes the law and the law can not tough businesses, the employer also needs to deal with all that too.
Basically there can not be a single small business. Only the already mega filthy greedy rich corporations are powerful enough to sustain them self without the government.
Hence the neo liberals will say that we obviously need both.
Yes, cherry picking. And the mega filthy greedy rich get to decide on the cherries they take.
Total regulation of corpos is a taboo because China. People are hyper allergic to even theorize over it. They simply somewhere heard that China is bad and everything from there is bad. And in logical consequence heavily governed markets must too be bad. There can not be a nuance to it. I read it on a meme, and it was funny, so it must be true.
Enjoyed listening to this one! Lively debate with a little right and wrong on each side. (Any philosophy that emphasizes the individual and his/her freedom is A-OK with me. Give me JS Mill any day. I've seen the opposite on the other side of "the Curtain," and it's soul-crushing ... so, yes, I'm biased ... but so are we all.)
There are two major problems with replacing capitalism: economic thinkers have failed to develop the required economic theory, and the system's underlying logic (growth, no limits, etc.) is consistent with human nature. To address the first I have developed a theory called the Economics of Needs and Limits (ENL). The second is unresolvable, which is why I believe that a global takeover by advanced AIs will be needed to avoid ecological collapse.
I think I’ll have to listen to this at least 30 times, not because it was unclear, but because it was so good!!! Thank you
To think beyond capitalism, think beyond the delusion of 'free will.'
Why do you believe that free will is a delusion my friend?
@@Inspiredkey.poetry I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective.
Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality.
I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments.
Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid. Your Judges are idiots. Your entire civilization is a delusion.
Don't even get me started on the symbols at its core. There is a specific flower established in Western Civ as the central symbol of your Pillar Capital orders, from the City of David (likely earlier as well, possibly as early as the establishment of Griffins at Knossos and perhaps earlier as the winged protective deities of Mesopotamian art) through the Corinthian Order, and it is going to utterly destroy everything.
So much murder. So much racism. So much injustice.
And no free will anywhere to be seen.
@@Inspiredkey.poetry I tried to respond earlier, but I am one of the most censored people on the internet. lol
I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective. Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality. I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments. Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid. Your Judges are idiots. Your entire civilization is a delusion.
@@Inspiredkey.poetry I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective. Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality. I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments. Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid.
They hate the Truth.
@@Inspiredkey.poetry Sorry, I'm supercensored or something lol
EDIT: I think a really great starting point is Dr. Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined." It is well worth the read. His many interviews on various youtube channels break down the anti-free will position from a neuroscientist's perspective. Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I myself have never believed in free will because I was interested enough in science as a child that the idea of a 'billiard ball' universe had already taken root, a belief which later gained various additions to satisfy our quantum reality. I think it's a delusion because it is breaks physical reality to satisfy and maintain judgments about the world which are wrapped up in a neurologically defined egotism of that asserts the Objectivity of one's Subjective assessments. Then you magnify this problem across society and you find that all of Western Civilization requires this supposition regarding free will to be true to maintain the status quo (and it's an ancient status quo... do you think the ancient people were right about 99.999% of things we know about today? exactly). Capitalism is invalid. Various world religions are invalid. Your institutions are unrighteous, unjust, and invalid. They hate the Truth.
Can anyone recommend a good book that expands on this problem? One that really examines the concept explored at the end around scrutinizing a system that may be the cause here but there's not a strong way to deal with it?
applying classical liberal ideas to economics wouldn't lead to capitalism. ideas like individual sovereignty and Locke's labor theory of property (he supports the commons and labor is what grants the right to extract property from the commons. thomas jefferson would reiterate the commons, when he states the earth is owned by all man in usufruct) are actually undermined by capitalism through contradiction. labor, for instance, sells their sovereignty for less than the value of the product they create (the important part is they sell it), and the very notion that grants the capitalist the capital is denied the laborer simply because he's using the capitalist's capital.
from state Socialism and Anarchism by Benjamin Tucker:
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price - or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price - these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, - interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.
what he's arguing against is the idea of investing capital in place of labor, because he's saying that that capital is already the payment in full.
Tucker was an Individualist Anarchist, which he says are "unterrified Jeffersonians". Jefferson criticizes capitalism as a system that creates class, dependence, and violates natural law by extending property rights so far as to exclude the majority from owning any. he all but outright calls it wage slavery. he says wage labor is dangerous to the republic, mostly because it'll end up being an oligarchy, a corruption of republican ideals where the economic elite rule, like Carthage (he would use a term like "financiers"). Tucker espouses Proudonian Mutualism, which is in agreement with Ricardian (or Smithian) socialism, where the workers own the means of production they are using in the form of worker cooperatives. Proudhon echoes Smith's notion of landlords "reaping where they haven't sown" by applying it all of capital. hence capitalist capital means "property is theft". Mutualism (mondragon was built on mutualist principles) sees a society of individual artisans and worker cooperatives, where the individual either makes their own decisions regarding their own work or through consensus when in conjunction with other individuals. where the capitalist ignores Locke's proviso, the mutualist fulfills it through "occupancy and use norms"....meaning what isn't allowed is absentee property that is necessary for things like landlordism.
Locke--->Jefferson---->Tucker---->Proudhon. Classical Liberalism's logical conclusion is a form of Libertarian Socialism.
Noam Chomsky made a presentation in the 70s that explains how Classical Liberalism's principles lead to Libertarian Socialism (although he's more of a descendent of Bakunin). he cites people like John Dewey and Wilhelm Von Humholdt.
It's called Government of the Future and it's found here:
th-cam.com/video/SnfioOtrBro/w-d-xo.html
If I join your patreon will you read Progress and Poverty?
Well done. I subscribed. Thank you for the good content and good reasoning.
Yes, even in social work. Yes
Excellent episode
Its easy to think beyond capitalism. The problem is people won't give up their creature comforts to get there. Also the revolutionary interim period attracts the ambitions of tyrants that corrupt the movement and soil its reputation beyond repair.
Looking forward to ideas for next steps because ultimately individuals with power will have to be accountable for their actions as judged by the greater community. When has that worked out well? Beyond never……
Damn this is good, kudos
this is what libertarians have been saying for decades
miss that guy today
I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this?
Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end.
It keeps going round in circles. One has to look through the phenomenological lens in the correct manner if they want beyond this primitive, half developed monkey head paradigm but who’s really ready for that path.
If you want to understand the modes - TH-cam - new paradigm fish by Yap. Stripping it right back part 1.
Alternatively- read my work for free on medium. New paradigm fish Yap.
It sucks big time.. and getting worse.
Stay frost out there, people.. FIGHTING!
Oh now I found your podcast on TH-cam and finally I can comment on your podcast haha. I don't know if capitalism as an economical system is the problem in why people are getting lonely. I think the state undermines and creates isolation. Think with me: if we know that the state should take care on my neighbor, then why should I care? I'm a 100% capitalist but also libertarian. Still I love your podcast.
I think a lot of people believe certain beliefs that lean towards conspiracy is for the tendency of those that have everything and the only thing left is to toy with people's lives I guess maybe that's why they act like they do? I don't know, I'm not omniscient.
I agree with the podcast in that the neo libertarian, Milton Friedman, we don’t need no government rhetoric is cringe and ultimately offensive. This libertarian turn really explains why Mitt Romney conservatism failed in America and why Trumpism was an inevitable development on the American Right. Their electorate was being ignored while Americas corporations internationalized and embraced radical individualism, making society outright hostile to their voting base.
Line go up or economic growth for the sake of economic growth can never be the governing ideology of a people. They will betray themselves for money.
underrated comment right here. 👏
18:39 so far so good, but I want to pause here and say that your representation here of the way to fulfillment or achivement is through self-commoditization and consumerism. That is one culture of capitalism, but certainly not all.
For example, if I want a shed, the only way I can get a shed is to sell myself for more and take that money and pay someone else to build a shed? No. I could absolutely build it myself. I could get family or friends to help me. I could hew the boards myself to try to save money on lumber at the expense of time. Maybe someone has leftover hardware they would be willing to trade for my old unused vaccume cleaner.
This is all capitalism without consumerism. To conflate the two is inaccurate.
(But maybe you acknowledge this later in the video. You have been doing a great job up to this point at presenting different sides quite fairly)
22:26 minimizing government intervention leads to greater use of government by corporations as a market intervention tool?
The logic here doesnt seem to hold, nor do real world examples. As the regulatory power of the US has expanded, so too has the special interests' time and energy investment. As it becomes a bigger and bigger access point to market control, it becomes a more important target for the rich and well connected.
25:50 okay, maybe I cant put myself into the neoliberal mindset; I am too stuck in the classical liberal way of thinking. But the discription you just gave of an employee net being a bad employee even though they arent doing work...no. That is a bad employee. If your employment with the company nets the company less value than the cost of your paycheck, you are costing the company money. That is not a benifit to them, and the fact that you lie about the work doesnt make you "just smart". It makes you a liar.
Imagine if someone paid you to fix their door, and you never got the job done but still expected pay every day you showed up. You are just really good at convincing them that you just need a couple more pieces of hardware. Check please.
Are you just a "smart" door repair man? No! You are a charlatan. You are not benifiting the people you are exchanging with, but extracting wealth from them. That isnt capitalism.
32:49 why the mental health issues?
Because the generations were born into a world where they were told that they would have to defeat great evils...yet most all the great evils could not be found within the area any longer.
Because we were raised that to suffer discomfort is harm, and so we become weak and brittle.
Because we were raised by government schools.
Because we were never taught how to do things for ourselves, and so we feel trapped into having to pay others to do things for us.
Because the internet allows for us to communicate more with people a million miles away than to spend time with people across the street.
This isn't a failure of rugged individualism. It doesnt even track with the rise of American individualism. It tracks with modern tech, modern culture, modern ineptitude, and modern expectations.
Read "The Managerial Revolution"
Would you please tell me the author of this book? I'll look for it.
@@sebastiaosalgado1979 James Burnham.
@@-lollipopsunder-7044 thanks
When you lean too much into the structural aspect of these problems, you create a blind spot for the people who CREATED these structures INTENTIONALLY. We have a blind spot for narcissists and psychopaths and sociopaths, who are actively looking for excuses to treat other people as commodities and will strive to create structures that allow them to do this. They are looking for excuses to not take responsibility for the impact they have on the world and will strive to create structures that absolve them of any responsibility. Think of the boss who denies pay rises to their poverty stricken workforce with the excuse "you don't produce enough value", basing their assessment not on the value created, but market rates for labour. Then they go out and buy a 4th Ferrari with record profits. The workforce DO produce enough value, which is why the boss had record profits to spend on yet another Ferrari, but the boss doesn't want to take responsibility for creating poverty with their own decisions, so they blame the market.
I'm of the firm belief that the major problem with society is this black and white view of the world - that somehow capitalism is good and socialism is bad. I think it is a matter of choosing the correct system to align with your goals.
For example: Is the goal to make money and advance industry? Capitalism is a good choice. Is your goal to increase a population's health? Capitalism is probably the wrong way to go, as the financial incentive increases with the number of sick people. Absolute idealism is narrow sighted
Good job
Capitalism was never just laid out as a “good, easily accessible plan”
Truth is the product of an exegetic standard.
"Why we can't think beyond capitalism". Man, I hate that title so much.
I have little trouble thinking beyond capitalism, and none whatsoever when I confine myself to the dystopian side of the fence. It's incredibly easy to do worse, and if you attempt to do better linking arms with people who don't understand this, it's almost a _certainty_ that you will do worse.
From this perspective, denigrating capitalism is the least productive move away from capitalism.
Beauty is truth and truth is beauty, and that's all you need to know-so long as you _also_ understand that ugliness is often just truth you don't fully understand yet. Capitalism is not so ugly that any damn thing that sounds good is an obvious improvement.
Because most people never mentally explore past their current envelope?
Bollocks my friend! What about if it is philosophy it self that it's terrible and deeply depressed long ago... unable to transform the world, unable to think it, Totally unfertile and rather aside and marginal... unable to grasp the thing itself but also unmatch to theorize it. Surpassed in the day to day world by the practical disciplines and also dumb in solving things.... what if...?