Пікірлер

• 
  @MultiNutzername13 күн бұрын

  Did he mention what book his notion of the US as a multinational state is in? That sounds fascinating

• 
  @robertmontgomery62564 күн бұрын

  Riveting interview! This is the 1st I’ve heard of John McClendon. 😮 Props to Daniel too.

• 
  @yljt0085 күн бұрын

  hello, if i could kindly ask, could you re-upload the readings? i try to access them through dropbox but am getting an error message

• 
  @kyledrums6 күн бұрын

  Quite the closing statements. Hope to see further discussion with professor McClendon.

• 
  @nikolademitri7318 күн бұрын

  Really enjoyed this, and I hope it’s the first of many conversations you two have!

• 
  @drferg18 күн бұрын

  Thank you Daniel for such an amazing and informative interview!

• 
  @eightiefiv310 күн бұрын

  Damn! That’s was amazing!! ❤

• 
  @offdabean11 күн бұрын

  Fantastic interview! Looking forward to more eps with Professor McClendon and to buying a copy of his book😂

• 
  @dallaskenn12 күн бұрын

  Goddamned Trots.

• 
  @michaeltee427512 күн бұрын

  Good to know that the guest rejects the traditional U.S. historical narrative that characterizes the founding of the U.S. state as a bourgeois revolution. It was a counter-revolution.

• 
  @beyondaboundary603412 күн бұрын

  McClendon's critique of Cedric Robinson's Black Marxism is the best one I've heard. His explanation of how Robinson was in conversation with Harold Kruse's black nationalist critique of Marxism, and accepted many of its premises while trying to defend C.L.R. James and Du Bois (etc.) as being part of a "black radical tradition" (i.e. not overly swayed by "white" ideas as Kruse suggested) is crucial. It shows why Robinson's critique of Marxism was problematic for many of the same reasons as Kruse's, because it was ultimately essentialist and culturalist. Also, I really appreciated McClendon's comments about C.L.R. James, who he clearly respected and engaged with very seriously over many years, despite his disagreements.

• 
  @The_Big_Sig12 күн бұрын

  This is such a great interview ❤

• 
  @cassiopeain12 күн бұрын

  I needed an interview like this.

• 
  @TheDrunkestSailor12 күн бұрын

  Only 20 mins in, but this channel is a gift that keeps on giving. Thanks for this. ❤

• 
  @totonow695513 күн бұрын

  No, Hegel not rendering Absolute as consistent but as utterly contradictory. The God of the beyond completely torn assunder....

• 
  @Albremen13 күн бұрын

  Thank you for this video. I've heard many points that sparked my interest. Looking forward to seeing more Mr McClendon.

• 
  @brymtb12 күн бұрын

  Thanks for the time stamps

• 
  @Albremen12 күн бұрын

  ​@@brymtb I didn't do time stamps 😊

• 
  @brymtb8 күн бұрын

  @@Albremen ...I was joking...you really need to...just sayn

• 
  @user-si1rw5db5q14 күн бұрын

  Can't wait to watch this later!

• 
  @nathanpayne500914 күн бұрын

  I find it interesting that you do not understand that fascism and progressive liberalism have become the same thing.

• 
  @user-ew2iv4sy1i11 күн бұрын

  Maybe, but equally we could add that the radical identitarian left has become fascist. It makes no secret of its authoritarianism, or even of its approval of violence.

• 
  @grantbello869515 күн бұрын

  That was an incredible presentation. I can't wait for this book.

• 
  @Rockyzach8816 күн бұрын

  I feel so called out. So when we starting the revolution? Digressing from the cause: Concerning campus protests, while you might be right that the "professionals" protesting in the way they are is _offputting_ , couldn't you also argue that type of protesting is helping _ground_ the professionals? In current times, many Students are the _liminal_ _state_ between the working class and the so called professionals.

• 
  @nonperson829316 күн бұрын

  did you guys skip chapter 8?

• 
  @louisllouisss231615 күн бұрын

  That must not have been uploaded, we read

• 
  @jvpresnall16 күн бұрын

  Truly good conversation.

• 
  @hankmmxviii264016 күн бұрын

  I must disagree with Dr. Felsch on his views on authoritarianism. This anti-authoritarianism that he says the left has gotten from Nietzsche, which means an aversion to any state control and authority which isn't the current liberal bourgeois authority, is why the new left is so politically impotent and incompetent. We don't want to resurrect the Soviet model as is, but we shouldn't give in to the capitalist revisionist narrative which denounces any serious attempt at political change and restructuring of the state as 'totalitarianism'. This anti-authoritarianism isn't shared by the fascist right which gives them, let's put it this way: a big advantage over the course of political developments of this century. The state is a tool. A truly revolutionary left must have plans to seize it from the current class and to keep it in check. Anti-authoritarianism stifles any constructive discussion around the seizure of state power and developing tools to avoid the potential pitfalls of EVERY political apparatus that wields authority over society (not just socialist 'totalitarian' states), such as corruption and elitist self-serving attitude among those in charge. We need to get over this anti-authoritarianism if we are serious about dealing with political crises and climate crises which are sure to come, otherwise we are playing into the hands of the current authorities and leaving a political vacuum for reactionary, xenophobic, warmongering fascists to fill.

• 
  @hankmmxviii264017 күн бұрын

  I ultimately agree with Lukacs' assessment of Nietzsche as a reactionary bourgeois philosopher and a product of the German philosophy's idealism, irrationalism and affinity for myths. This spiritual and idealist radicalism, which conveniently avoids challenging the material structures of society, is precisely why he remains 'seductive' and influential among bourgeois intellectuals, the post-modern philosophers and the 'new' left. I'm not familiar with Harich's work but going off of your assessment, the overemphasizing on Nietzsche and the idea that suppression of Nietzsche's philosophy could've saved leftism is the desperate idealism of a philosopher who overestimates the influence of his own field and goes against the dialectical materialism of Marx, which says philosophy and culture are not elevated from the socio-political conditions of the time and are in a dialectical relationship with every other aspect of society.

• 
  @prog84542 күн бұрын

  I find Lukács's category of irrationalism self-defeating because if anti-foundationalism is irrational then hegel is an irrational thinker because its accepted by the majority of hegel scholars including ones with fundemental disagreements, for example brandom and houlgate, accept that hegel is an anti-foundationalist thinker. Not mention that every other student of Schopenhauer adopts hegel in their system, including Mainländer who was enjoyed by August Bebel, the leader of the SPD, who was staunchly anti-war.

• 
  @ReclaimedDasein17 күн бұрын

  I really great interview. I especially like Tutt's hands off interview style. Occasionally, he interjects a question or two, but they're incisive and to the point.

• 
  @in.der.welt.sein.17 күн бұрын

  This debate starts at this level of "well, all these theorists from different traditions have different ideals about freedom and equality." In other words, freedom and equality is a difficult topic because it's seemingly a license to think pretty thoughts. Who is not for freedom? Conservatives and liberals, slavers, communists and even fascists like Rocco defend a fascist conception of liberty. --That is true despite very different and contrary conceptions of what freedom is and means. The commonality across the political spectrum: freedom is guiding principle of a rational society. This in itself is a good reason to be suspicious about freedom. What kind of an animal is this if it can characterize the aim and the guiding principle of so many different and contrary political standpoints? If everybody can gather together under the banner of freedom, then perhaps a meaningless phrase/slogan? -- Not quite. As an ideal, freedom has an infinite variety of meanings; but as a political and economic principle of society, it means one thing and one thing only: the peculiar principle of the democratic state and the capitalist society over which it rules. To grasp this point, put aside all these ideals of freedom and take a look at what freedom really is in this society. What does a free society look like? Then to answer this question you have to actually investigate the democratic state and the capitalist society it rules over. Then you would no longer play this academic game of picking bits and pieces from random thinkers which seem "interesting", but would make a materialist analysis of what freedom is in reality, how it looks in today's social world. Those on the radical left-wing to point to political and economic domination and deny the existence of freedom: “wage slavery”, “phony freedom”. - This is a way of judging freedom not by what it is, but by what it is not, namely, an ideal of freedom. My claim: political and economic domination and freedom are not opposites, they go hand in hand. Freedom represents the way a capitalist democracy uses and instrumentalizes the will and the material interests of the citizens it subjects to its rule.

• 
  @eightiefiv317 күн бұрын

  Minute 45-6: I think Felsch means Domenico Losurdo (not Giovanni).

• 
  @billyfudd81817 күн бұрын

  thanks guys. My take on Nietzsche: A little pastor goes to uni and sees Jesus fucking Christ in a lecture hall. He notices the other attendees snickering or gasping. Thinks to himself; these people don't need another little pastor, they need a goddamn butler! The subsequent ensued.

• 
  @gabrielignetti607217 күн бұрын

  You all need to learn to communicate more in colloquial english. More than half of this went right over my head.

• 
  @AudioPervert118 күн бұрын

  Artistic breakthrough matters even if it happens less and less. Without which we would have no special place for art and the relationship it creates between society and artists. But an ever increasing obsession with technology, procedures and methods, also cuts down or impairs potentiality, to think and act independently. Blocks out the irrational and rebellious instincts within us. The artist is “a transmitter of orders and a performer of calculations” (Jaques Ellul - Empire of Nonsense). Even as that sounds utterly hard-line, as opinion it does resonate when we observe the ‘producers of art’ engaged in various seemingly creative acts. An electronic music producer is most often “transmitting” her or his creativity into machines, real or virtual, via software which consequently performs the necessary “calculations” to generate the desired sound (and music). Or many times just mindless garbage. Ironic that they constantly remind us, that this stuff is ‘State Of The Art’ However this so called expert, has little to say about the overall impact and rule of technology on modern music, instead the same old David Bowie cult worship trash has to prevail. So bogus.

• 
  @scribewolfmusic11 күн бұрын

  Howdy, I'm the so-called "so-called expert" in the interview. I believe I made two passing mentions of David Bowie, both of them in reference to examples of periodization in specific books (Heroes by "Bifo" Berardi and Noise by Jacques Attali). These mentions weren't endorsements; I certainly don't belong to any cult & funny enough I'm actually not much of a fan of Bowie...not that there's anything wrong with that! :-) Contra the claim that I failed to take up the question of technology & music--which was not even within the stated purview of this interview, so I'm a bit thrown by the bellicose tone!--I notably began my discussion by illuminating an electroacoustic piece by Luigi Nono. It's a beautiful piece indeed! Additionally, insofar as the centerpiece of our discussion, Attali's Noise, is a kind of transposed historical materialist genealogy of music, we actually touched on--quite a bit--the question of technology, what mediatizes the artistic truth-procedure (Badiou) in the diachronic-Symbolic unfolding of music history. I do remember while babbling about the new problems facing improvisation in the era of communicative capitalist isolation in relation to my own new free improv project, I even discussed processual asynchronicity a la digital multitracking as a distinct element interjecting into the improvisational record, and I believe I made reference to Benjamin's famous essay at that time. Nonetheless, I apologize that this video, which has nothing to do with your comment, didn't include anything having to do with your comment--including the Bowie stuff--but I'm confident that you already know exactly what you're gonna put in the excellent video you'll make on the topic, whatever that is! :-)

• 
  @Roland0019 күн бұрын

  the wager is why ambiguous endings work. The black sopranos ending reveals your desire and how one is angry one did not get it. It is also why the Lacan short session works for some people (something I am of mixed feelings with for it can become unethical)

• 
  @Adam-ui3bl20 күн бұрын

  15:20 I think it's essentially wrong to say the Chinese Communists had greater success organizing peasants than industrial workers -- the Party was based and founded in Shanghai, and they had enough success there that they organized three worker uprisings in the 1920s. The third had over half a million workers fighting the government; they drove out the army, and then the Nationalist / KMT forces, which the communists were working within, were able to come take over. The reason it looks like they failed by the 1930s is that this early success was entirely, mercilessly routed by Chiang -- working with the local triads, he turned around a couple years later and massacred the communists and labor leaders. Zhou Enlai barely survived, and he made it out to the countryside, where Mao had been organizing peasants and gaining territory (ignoring Stalin's Comintern's orders) -- and then, of course, that becomes their base. (Although I think having a mass peasant base would've still turned out to be essential in China, given its economic conditions; and I like Tutt's point that students were also crucial, people ignore the fact that almost all "third / 2nd world" revolutionaries of those generations were relatively privileged students who studied abroad!)

• 
  @zainmudassir296421 күн бұрын

  The way must be forced back open imo

• 
  @0MVR_022 күн бұрын

  capital owes us the commons

• 
  @AnalyticPiracy22 күн бұрын

  Thanks so much for your work Daniel

• 
  @lucasparker185223 күн бұрын

  Thank you for making this lecture publicly available. I came to this video at a moment of curiosity about why so much time and energy is devoted to self discovery and definition in our culture, wanting to understand where that comes from and how it takes form at an individual and societal level. This lecture has given me a framework to understand what is happening. I don’t think I would have been able to absorb the concepts in my university years, but they have an immediacy today and I am grateful that your lecture was here when I needed it.

• 
  @lucasparker185221 күн бұрын

  Can I ask, is there anything you would recommend reading to better understand psychoanalysis, particular as it relates to learning how to live in a world without functioning ego ideals? You made a comment about that at the end of your lecture and I would love to dive explore that topic more.

• 
  @johnsammis154424 күн бұрын

  I’m into the golden showers of Marx

• 
  @afs418526 күн бұрын

  Excellent elucidation by Paris L here!

• 
  @julieannstout27 күн бұрын

  This book is a thoroughly enjoyable read. I read it about six months & I still am thinking about it while I’m at work during the day. It’s very quick and easy to read, but it leaves you thinking about it for months.

• 
  @CRManor27 күн бұрын

  In terms of a wager made in Capital, recall that in Chapter 6 Marx tells us "In every country in which the capitalist mode of production reigns, it is the custom not to pay for labour-power before it has been exercised for the period fixed by the contract, as for example, the end of each week. In all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the capitalist: the labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist. " I'm more interested in how the worker 'advances' labor-power as a 'credit' to the capital in terms of a wager. The worker already incurs the loss, but do they believe or merely follow the ritual?

• 
  @Barklord23 күн бұрын

  Have you ever read David P. Ellerman's critique of wage labour and the (liberal) labour theory of property? I think it's interesting in a legal sense, in that our current property laws should exclude renting humans for wages. He says that defacto responsibility for work is not rewarded with a corresponfing property right in the same way that defacto responsibility for illegal actions on the job are punished equally irrespective of whether one is or is not compensated with a wage.

• 
  @YepX28 күн бұрын

  Please invite on Alex from the Marx Engles Lenin Institute.

• 
  @gjb796628 күн бұрын

  so great! thank you for this amazing episode!

• 
  @Mathilde321928 күн бұрын

  1:24:06 the question posed here is fascinating. This program has been excellent. I would like to point to Lukacs’ criticism of Freud in the Schopenhauer section of the Destruction of Reason which alongside certain quotes by Freud seem to preclude the unconscious dimension of psychoanalytic concepts from at least Lukacs’ form of Marxism. Take for example this entry from Freuds late Findings, Ideas, Problems “Space may be the projection of the extension of the psychical apparatus. No other derivation is probable. Instead of Kant’s a priori determinants of our psychical apparatus. Psyche is extended; knows nothing about it.” This statement along with Freud’s investigations into mysticism clash quite strongly with the principles by which Lukacs criticizes Schopenhauer’s neo-Kantian subjective idealism. Lacan’s counter-criticism of class consciousness in this Seminar is intriguing because to me it comes from a dimension that I’m not sure Lukacs treated because Lacan’s criticism is strongly based on his definition of the signifier and the effect of the symbolic on the subject. Much to puzzle over here

• 
  @Driigun129 күн бұрын

  kzread.info/dash/bejne/n6Cm2JKgo6q2psY.htmlsi=mdjOzxPRwhnE9vPr

• 
  @aladdinbinschamar244229 күн бұрын

  Where are the other sessions?

• 
  @mitchell_figАй бұрын

  The difference between communion and a bond formed by a loss of a past that was more "whole" is interesting, I think there has to be a difference between the two when it comes to speech (full and empty speech)

• 
  @koftuАй бұрын

  Lovely talk. I didn't quite know what I was signing up for when I began listening, but a lot of these ideas articulate what I've been feeling and thinking myself in my own practices. That said, I usually fall back onto a different Marx to describe my innate discomfort with cataphatic systems: "I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member." 🙂

• 
  @dethkonАй бұрын

  Peter Rollins is the greatest! THEORY UNDERGROUND IN THE BUILDING

• 
  @nikolademitri731Ай бұрын

  This was great. I first discovered Peter via “Owls At Dawn” (which I miss) podcast, and while I absolutely DON’T understand all his work (nor Daniel’s), I do appreciate very much of it as a kind of Kierkegaardian Christian mystic of some sort.. I just appreciate struggling with all this, and I’ll have to listen to it again for sure. Thanks for this conversation! 🙏