Dr. Taimur Rahman is an academic, activist, musician, and author. He got his Ph.D. from SOAS (UK) and is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. His debut book is titled "Class Structure of Pakistan" (OUP). He is the General Secretary of the Mazdoor Kissan Party (Pakistan) and the spokesperson for the band Laal.
This is the KZread Channel where Dr. Taimur Rahman will be uploading Content for International Audience (English Speaking).
Пікірлер
Interesting lecture despite wrong conclusions. Saying that privatisation is the reason for plunging into darkness shows a very biased narrative. The fact of the matter is sheer incompetence and corruption in the policy setup rather than privatisation.
Ebonics is the term that was first coined back in the 1970s by Dr. Robert Williams, an African-American psychology professor in St. Louis, MO. Through further study by linguist experts, they now call it African American English.
What a pleasure hearing this story! This is the way of learning we all need to learn. This is the way of an organic intellectual, not the arm of critique but the critique of arms.
Russia Ukraine problems are down to Trotsky and his no back bone.
This people's history of Pakistan.
❤️🌏🇺🇸🤝🙏🙏🙏🙏
Tad bit dissapointed by the lack of materialist analysis...
Very insightful. Beautifully narrated.
Is it considered impossible in modern left/far-left circles to develop society towards more well-being for more people and advance social and economic equality without Marxism? What's so essential and unique in Marxism that we can't do good as well without? What are the pit falls of his theories and why did the actual implementations turn out so brutal, inhumane and despotic with very little economic success and devastating famines and shortages instead? Most of these arguments are strawmen and selective or idealistic interpretations. Technically Marx didn't divide society in to just two classes but in practice doesn't the distinction always eventually boil down to the have's and have not's? I think the problem here is that Dr. Peterson isn't talking about how Marxism could be ideally interpreted and how noble and sublime the ultimate ideals are. I know from my uni times people who adhere to this dogma and how it is imcorporated into radical social, gender and identity agendas, even animal rights activism. Peterson has a fairly good reason to simplify and reduce Marxism because that's what it actually looks like. Not perfect intellectually but he leaves that to those who actually take Marx seriously. A Jungian psychologist cannot take either Freud or Marx as the complete package but more often Marxist and Freudians see no real need for Jung's ideas. I'm not surprised by the soulless dogmatism that every Communist utopian project resulted in so far.
Αυτοι είναι αριστεροί όχι κάτι ΣΥΡΙΖΑ και κακό συναπάντημα που εμψυχώνουν τον Ζελενσκυ και προσκυνούν τον Νετανιάχου
Why did he suggest that Claude Monet was a Nazi? I would be very surprised if that was true. I doubt it.
Yuval Noah Harari is a fascist, just to add a name to the list
You don't mention the main argument of Trotsky against "socialism in one country", that is, that the economy is now integrated as a world system (so your examples about the agricultural revolution on Asia are anachronic and not applicable) and that (I don't have the exact quote) the cheaper commodities of the more advanced capitalist world were a greater danger to the revolutionary country than his armies (prophetic, look at he USSR demise). Also, on that quote you cite, Lenin was against waiting for world revolution to start a revolution in your our country, not against the idea of the need of revolution in the more advanced countries. This matches Trotsky conception.
Hearing Claudia talk about Malcolm X sends shivers down my spine 🔥🔥
This is mind blowing
A book is the accumulation of information
04:06 now your just making stuff up lol😂
Existentialism can be understood by kieerkegard , the father of existentialism...he could not accept German logic For Islam...so he developed morbid version life according to Christianity , not islam
This video is a deliberate falsification of Trotsky's ideas. The speaker takes a moralistic point of view on the question of the peasantry, revolution in Europe, and tries to separate Lenin as holding different ideas from Trotsky. Some short clarifications for genuine revolutionaries who've listened to this: 1. The theory of the permanent revolution outlines that the peasantry has never played an independent role because of their heterogeneous nature. Trotsky's theory was that they would either follow the working class or the bourgeoisie, but they could not play an independent role. Trotsky never said that they couldn't play a revolutionary role. This was proved in practice in the Russian Revolution where they did play a revolutionary role by following the leadership of the proletariat in the soviets - led by Trotsky himself ! 2. Trotsky did not fetishise Europe. Europe at that time was the most advanced area of the world in terms of having the centres of world production and capital, alongside having revolutionary uprisings where workers could have taken power, and in some cases did. They live, as we do now, in a world dominated by imperialism. Tsarist Russia was a backward country where only 10-15% of the population were working class, and most of the people were peasants. This was not the material base to develop socialism through material abundance. Stalinism and the bureaucracy which politically expropriated the workers was a product of this isolation and backwardness. That is not a moral question - but a political and economic one. 3. In a world dominated by imperialism, of course the imperialist and most advanced capitalist countries are the most important to have revolutions in! Socialism inherently should be a higher mode of production and level - relative to that of capitalism. No workers state has yet achieved this in the course of the 20th century. Imperialist countries hold the key levers of power. They hold the material basis to develop socialism and bring the whole world along with them. That did not mean Trotsky and Lenin didn't want or fight for revolution in backward countries! But for that to be successful, to not be invaded or constantly harassed like Cuba is today by US imperialism, their guarantee of victory requires revolution in the main imperialist countries. To put it another way, imagine if the USA today had a socialist revolution. It would completely upend the whole world, and countries across the whole world would easily fall to socialism, potentially without even a fight because of the leverage the USA has through its financial and military means. 4. This quote used by the speaker is from Lenin is from Jan 1918: "I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense." This is NOT directed against Trotsky, but against Mensheviks, Right SRs, those still in the second international, and even some in Bolshevik Party - but NOT Trotsky who literally carried out all the operations of the October Revolution itself (a few months ago)! Lenin says in so many different passages that this is only the beginning of the world revolution, and internationalism is at the heart of everything he wrote and spoke of. He had no illusion that socialism could be built isolated in Russia alone. 5. Even Stalin in his Foundations of Leninism wrote in Feb 1924 just after Lenin died said that socialism required the efforts of the advanced capitalist countries: “The main task of socialism - the organisation of socialist production - remains ahead. Can this be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible…For the final victory of socialism, for organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient.” In November 1924, Stalin had a revised edition which said the complete opposite! Socialism in one country is the real revisionism of Marxism - not Trotskyism. If you want to know more about this topic, I would encourage you to read the Permanent Revolution for yourself, and this is also very good to clarify slanders and outright falsifications like the speaker has in this video: www.marxist.com/lenin-trotsky-stalinism-johnstone.htm
Great comment!
I have recently joined a Trotskyist organization and was on the hunt for some good arguments against Trotskyism, to challenge my views. I'm glad to have found a learned Marxist laying out a cohesive argument against Trotskyism, but did not find any reason to abandon Trotskyism in this video. Your main argument is that Trotsky's opposition to socialism in one country is "Eurocentric" and pacifies revolutions in third world countries? Or somehow expresses that there's no point in third world countries carrying out communist revolutions, lest there be a European proletariat spearheading/aiding the process. I'd say this is a completely distorted interpretation of the theory of permanent revolution. I sense almost a post-modern / identity politics based critique, implying that Trotsky was blinded by his subjective experience as a European, which led him to unscientific Eurocentric conclusions that disregarded third world countries. This is a completely unserious critique - the basis for Trotsky's theory is a dialectical materialist one. It says that an isolated revolution in a backward country cannot create socialism and is dependent on the spread of revolution to more developed countries. I get that this on first glance has a pessimistic undertone, for any revolutionaries wanting to fight for socialism/communism in their third world country - and as you rightly point out, this is probably the reason why Trotskyism is more popular in the most developed countries than elsewhere. But that doesn't take away from the correctness of the assessment Trotsky makes here. And it also does not, once you factor in all elements that convenently are left out in this video, that there's no reason for f.ex. Pakistan to fight for revolution even if the West is currently not revolutionary. It's a theory that expresses, that if Pakistan were to succeed in a revolution, that it must be their utmost priority to fight for the spread of that revolution if they wish to gain the material conditions to protect their victories and create socialism in their country. Trotsky is not Eurocentric; he is basing his analysis off of the material circumstances that needs to be in place for a revolution not to degenerate. Socialism needs to have a material basis, and an isolated third world country cannot alone provide this material basis for socialism. It doesn't matter whether the revolution spreads to Europe, or China, or Russia: it just needs to spread to a substantial sphere of developed capitalist countries, so that there can be an industry and trade relation to build socialism upon. But I see from the Wikipedia of "World Anti-Imperialist Platform", which you are part of, that you don't deem Russia or China to be imperialist and thus not capitalist either, I assume. Which is blatantly wrong, and tells me that I don't need to look any further into your material - but thanks anyway for this video, which has only solidified my view that I am on the right path.
You have neglected the main point of my criticism. Which is Trotsky's position on the peasantry.
MLK was a Socialist? I don’t have anything against socialism, but I don’t remember him saying he was a socialist. In fact, begrudgingly, he had to relieve a communist friend and associate from his duties with SCLC at the request of LBJ.
Dylan Tomas was the peot ! Thanks for forgetting 😊,
🙌🏾👸🏾🪶Native Queen, let's go!!
Existentialism came from clash of islam and christianity and specially those christian who were adamant to gramt islams suprimacy estblished by german poet and philosophers
Existentialism can be understood by kieerkerd , the father of existentialism...he could not accept German logic For Islam...so he developed morbid version life according to Christianity , not islam
Where does human exist ? As a robot or a monkey...? No, as a khalifa of god , but how ? british and french philosophy nurtured extententialism : kierkegard and nietzshe both painful and morbid ..why?
Intresting.. Africans didn't sell Africans.. these folks were distinct and did not see themselves as all African.. There is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined. And lastly, some Indigenous Americans groups have the same melanin content and phenotype as an "African." It's like we are lead to believe Indians and Chinese are both Asians when that's nonsensical 😂😂😂😂
She is so smart
The problem here is that the view that the success of the Russian revolution relied on the European revolution was held by all Bolshevik leaders especially Lenin. You can find innumerable quotes from Lenin. I still think there is a Eurocentricism to Trotskyism that even Trotsky fought against ( i can go into depth on this if need be). But Stalins failure was his provincialism, the sought after European revolution can be more suitably called the German revolution. And Trotsky had a better grasp of KPD / SPD / Nazi politics than Stalin. I think theres an artificial disagreement that goes on about the disagreement between Stalinism and trotskyism sometimes and a reductionism.
It is clear that the people of the various nations are more closely aligned with one another than the politicians of any given nation are aligned with their own people. Although the propaganda machine works hard to make the people forget this.
As anyone every studied whether these Russian peasants wanted a revolution against the czar? Russians were basically slaughtered by 100s of millions by jews communism and now the Russian people might go Extinct within 200 years. Nobody asked communist for a revolution
What a pair of wallys
Claire and Mick, love from Bulgaria !!!
Politics aside.
Whose phone is this anyway?
“It’s All Too Much” the Beatles, a psychedelic tune.
Sensory overload has its price.
I prefer the oldies, I guess I’m an oldie.
Your brain receives the data the brain fills in what’s missing makes one to fill manipulate data into what is relatable, thus tactile?
Electrical power is instantaneous. Things can change in the blink of an eye. “Television Eyes”.
Writing ones ideas such ideas can be read again again and influencing thinking good or bad. Indifferent is better I think. Opposites dichotomies, I think Ayn Rand and Marshall are such opposites in many ways, individualism or social benefit the tribe, yes?
Ce sont des héros, des lions. L'histoire tentera de les éffacer ou de les récupérer, mais ils auront marqué la lutte contre le génocide devant un par-terre de corrompu Européens laches ou racistes
❤❤❤❤
so not only has Mr. Peterson only read the Manifesto (and no other work by Marx), but he also gets the Manifesto wrong at various important parts... not good, Mr. Peterson.
The idea that the history of humanity is the history of "class" struggle is also reductionist bullshit.
Sir, you are a phenomenal mind. Hopefully, you will educate the people of Pakistan in a true spirit. Society needs your intellect to change the status quo.
Sir, you are a phenomenal mind. Hopefully, you will educate the people of Pakistan in a true spirit. Society needs your intellect to change the status quo.
Sir, you are a phenomenal mind. Hopefully, you will educate the people of Pakistan in a true spirit. Society needs your intellect to change the status quo.
Sir, you are a phenomenal mind. Hopefully, you will educate the people of Pakistan in a true spirit. Society needs your intellect to change the status quo.
Sir, you are a phenomenal mind. Hopefully, you will educate the people of Pakistan in a true spirit. Society needs your intellect to change the status quo.
Sir, you are a phenomenal mind. Hopefully, you will educate the people of Pakistan in a true spirit. Society needs your intellect to change the status quo.
"Should a socialist revolution occur" is deceitful language. All "socialist revolutions" are military coups lead by an armed extremist party, hellbent on confiscating all private property. Socialism does not benefit the "working class", it benefits the top socialists in a pyramid scheme fashion. Everybody else looses. All the communist leaders of the SUKP had serious personal faults, and committed human right crimes on a massive scale, in order to establish an economic-political nightmare. Trotsky held brilliant speeches full of absolute rubbish. Trotsky proudly supported the killing of millions in the civil war his own party started, and the massive violence against the Kronstad uprising in particular. The Kronstad uprising was an uprising of the very people supposed to benefit from the "revolution". Trotsky condemned the people and supported the party rule, at all cost. Trotsky was a war criminal that ended up on the loosing side in a party internal feud.