Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "The cult many are in but don’t realize" video.
-
Are you sure about that, the communist society Marx claimed was a society without oppresstion everyone can do whatever activity they wish, doesn't need to work, and no politic. This seems way further than just an improved world for the working class, and closer than a utopia.
“communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”(‘The German Ideology’)
"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.” ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith')
5
-
In practise from what happened in Great Chinese Famine and, The Cultural Revolution, Communism did meet the definition of religion defined by Max Lynn Stackhouse and Emile Durkheim.
"a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted" (Max Lynn Stackhouse)
"a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them."(Emile Durkheim)
In the Great Chinese Famine, the leadership known that they need to capitalise the econmy to increase the farmer incentive, they didn't do that because they believed it would be a recession from Communism stage to Capitalist stage of Mode of production in the Marxist theory of historical materialism.
It has a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, the images of Mao, Lenin, Engus, Marx and communist propaganda were everywhere, and the "The Little Red Book"/"The Treasured Red Book" holded by every red guard .
The left deviationism and the cult of personality to Mao that led the Red Guard to "fight and contest" their own parents.
The daily "Reporting to the portrait of Chairman Mao day and night" (This was an actual activity) to reinforce the cult of personality to Mao.
There were many more examples to show that many historical practiced of communism fitted the definition of religion and even cult.
3
-
So as Karl Marx, his dialectic showed that Hegel's "End of History" and resulting reconciliation of freedom and determination, was premature: Hegel had not accounted for the contradictions in what he called "civil society"--the economic sphere--that continued to undermine the "autonomous" activity of modern subjects. Since the species had not yet gained rational mastery over our economic activity, since collective social action was still characterized by alienated productions that take on a life of their own, and come to dominate their producers (arrayed under the category of capital), humanity had not yet returned to itself, and history remained incomplete.
Karl Marx redefined the term of “End of History” from Hegel’s from something indefinite, to a definite goal (the reunification of production and producers). Human can complete the incomplete history( the future, things that not yet happen) by reunify production to the producers, which coincidentally Marxism advocated.
It seems Karl Marx (distorted the meaning of dialect in some way) dialect as a token to justify communism (his ideology).
Dialectic in this context is just a tool for theory, ideology or religion justification.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
You are right, Marxist "dialectical materialism" is not a religion, it is a rigged thinking process with a pre-determined final answer.
Marx's dialectic showed that Hegel's "End of History" and resulting reconciliation of freedom and determination, was premature: Hegel had not accounted for the contradictions in what he called "civil society"--the economic sphere--that continued to undermine the "autonomous" activity of modern subjects. Since the species had not yet gained rational mastery over our economic activity, since collective social action was still characterized by alienated productions that take on a life of their own, and come to dominate their producers (arrayed under the category of capital), humanity had not yet returned to itself, and history remained incomplete.
Karl Marx redefined the term of “End of History” from Hegel’s from something indefinite, to a definite goal (the reunification of production and producers). Human can complete the incomplete history( the future, things that not yet happen) by reunify production to the producers, which coincidentally Marxism advocated.
Marx's dialectic, just as TIK said, is just a "scientific" curtain to convince people that it is not a religion to claim that the current economic system causing the alienation between the produces and the producer, which also alienation human from humanity and history remained incomplete. To make humanity returned to itself, and complete human history, people need to socialising the working class ('The Manifesto of Communist Party'), overthrowning the government ('The Manifesto of Communist Party'), centralising all the mean of production into the hands of nation ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith'), let all those resource being rationally regulated by "socialised man (definitely not mean all the people)" (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.) ,and implementing the "Marxist Revolutionary measures" ('The Manifesto of Communist Party') that would make the state (but centralise goverement will still continue exist) die out (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels) and form a classless society without oppression, without politic ('The Manifesto of Communist Party') , everyone can do whatever activity they wish, and, doesn't need to work. (‘The German Ideology’)
The relative Marx's quotes are listed as below.
________________________________
“communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”(‘The German Ideology’)
"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.” ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith')
“Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. … When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out.” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
“Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JAMAICADOCK Falun Gong never link Marx with satanic ambitions, they just used inductive reasoning to conclude the Chinese Communist Party, not Marxist, Marx or communism, an evil cult with the atrocities CCP ever did. They didn't deduce anything, they didn't explore the reason behind that.
It is not necessary only Marxist helped in developing extremely poor countries, in education, life expectancy, housing, or electrification. It is just dictators did good thing with their absolute power. Park Chung Hee, Pinochet and Chiang Kai-shek also did that in a stable regime.Chiang Kai-shek even did that twice in mainland China and Taiwan.
Is youth movements , motorways, modern Olympics, family cars, rocket technology the product of Nazi ideology?
Just like Nazism, it seems there would be no Marxism left if just keeping the good stuff from Marxism. As the leftover good stuff of Marxism, is not Marxism anymore, is just the eager for equality, the criticism of the exporation of capitalism , and the goods deeds we mentioned before, which can also be found within Nazism, Fascism or other kind of dictatorship ever existed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TIK said 2+2=5, TIK was referencing "What is Dialectic?" not David Pakman or James Lindsay.
According to Popper, [If two people are having a "Dialectical Conversation," and one believes 2+2=4, and the other believes 2+2=5, they make arguments and attempt to convince one another. ] is just "the trial and error method may be said to be slightly wider than that in terms of dialectic." (p.405)
As the "description of the trial and error method only speaks about some idea and its criticism, or, using the-terminology of dialecticians, about a thesis and its antithesis. But it makes no suggestions about the further development-it does not maintain that a struggle between a thesis and an antithesis will lead to a synthesis. Rather it would tend to suggest that the struggle between an idea and its criticism, or of a thesis and its antithesis will lead to an elimination of the thesis (or, perhaps, of the antithesis) if it is not satisfactory; and to the establishment of another theory only if enough are at hand and are offered for trial." (p.405)
1
-
You are right, but The communist society Marxism promised after "The End of History" is a utopia. In a society without oppression, everyone can do whatever activity they wish, doesn't need to work for their livelihood, and has no politics.
“communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”(‘The German Ideology’)
"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.” ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith')
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kazunabe4288 Because UPB and TIK seems never said what you claimed they said. Show me your “Utopia” quote in UPB and where TIK mentioned Ayn Rand?
A world that Governments would keep centralising their power is also not an Utopia at all.
Let me show you the Marxist Utopia in Marx own words.
“…communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”(‘The German Ideology’)
"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.” ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith')
1
-
Just read "What is Dialectic?" the source TIK was quoting.
Other than explaining what Dialectic is, the source also lists out the limitation of Dialectic, Namely:
"It is, therefore, an empirical descriptive theory, comparable, for instance, with a theory which maintains that most living organisms increase their size during some stage of their development, then remain constant, and lastly decrease until they die; or with the theory which maintains that opinions are usually held first in a dogmatic attitude, then in a somewhat skeptical attitude, and only afterward, in a third stage, in a scientific, i.e., critical, attitude. Like such theories, Dialectic is not applicable without exceptions as long as we are careful not to force the dialectic interpretation. Like those theories, Dialectic is rather vague. And like those theories, Dialectic has nothing particular to do with logic."
"The vagueness of Dialectic is another of its dangers. It makes it only too easy to force a dialectic interpretation on all sorts of developments and even on quite different things."
"Dialectic is not a fundamental but merely a descriptive theory. It is therefore about as inappropriate to take Dialectic as part and parcel of logic, or else as opposed to logic, as it would be to take, say, the theory of evolution."
So for the 1st point, it seems that the "2+2=4 being a thesis and 2+2=5 being an antithesis with some need for a synthesis." is not a straw-manning bullshit but a showcase of those limitations of Dialectic.
___________________________________________________
For the 2nd point, "The material world is our mind," is the rephase of the source (I cannot find the original version from Hegel's literature), the original paragraph from the source is: ["As I have said, Hegel in his idealism went beyond Kant. Hegel, too, was concerned with the question: "How can our mind grasp the world? "But his theory-with, with the other idealists he also answered: "Because the world is mind-like" -was more radical than Kant's. He did not say, like Kant: "Because our mind forms the world "; he said: "Because our mind is the world "; or in another formulation: "Because the reason is the real-because reality and reason are identical." This is Hegel's so-called "philosophy of identity of reason and reality, "or, in short, his "philosophy of identity. "It is hardly worth noting that between Kant's: "Because our mind forms the world, "and Hegel's philosophy of identity: "Because our mind is the world, "there was, historically, a bridge-namely Fichte's answer: "Because our mind creates the world."]
______________________________________________________________
For the 3rd point, "posit" is not a very good explanation for neglecting what the author had said, regardless Hegel was saying, "The god actually exists, and it is in our mind, and human or humankind itself is the god" or "The God is just a mere imagination in our mind" is up to different interpretation until anyone can provide concrete evidence to prove otherwise. "Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx" by Robert C. Tucker suggested Hegel preferred the former interpretation.
Quote: "Jesus is not God become man, but man becomes God. This is the key idea on which the entire edifice of Hegelianism was to be constructed: there is no absolute difference between the human nature and the divine. They are not two separate things with an impassable gulf between them. The absolute self in man, the homo noumenon, is not mere godlike … it is God. Consequently, in so far as man strives to become "like God," he is simply striving to be his own real self. And in deifying himself, he is simply recognizing his own true nature" Furthermore, TIK never said Hegel was Neo-Platonic/Kabbalistic Christian mystic in this video.
_________________________________________________
For the 4th point, TIK never said Hegel was a gnostic in this video; he just said gnostic Socialist (Marxist Fascist and Nazi) (mis)using Dialectics to justify their "religion."
_______________________________________________________________________________
So, in summary, TIK's narrative on Dialectic was academically sound and not just some made-up bullshit. Despite that, his point in this video was quite poorly represented from a debate perspective, and he also could not bridge the knowledge gap between the common perspective of Dialectic and what he had read.
1
-
1
-
@blackanarchicreacts
Your interpretation of Hegelian Dialects is not the only true interpretation, I believe. What gives you the monopoly power to decide what narrative is valid and what is not in every case? On what basis you can determine it is “don’t know what he is talking about” to quote a Communist’s narrative of Hegelian Dialectics in a video about the Socialist’s narrative (Communist, Fascist, and Nazi) on Dielectric (which may also be wrong under the common narrative)?
Popper was still well-regarded in the field of philosophy. I don’t think your criticism of him was not really relevant to his creditability. Your narrative of someone is not credible because some of his theories were not well received, implying that philosophy is a mathematician and will always have objective answers.
Removing all those Ad hominem, why pointing out that Dialectic has its limitation and cannot apply in every situation is “not knowing what he is talking about”?
___________________________________________________
TIK did say that, and he was wrong. Dialectic itself is too simple to be a religion. It has the end goal of "End of History" and an internal logic to achieve that end goal, but what is the "End of the History," and how to archive it? That is open for interpretation.
Kojève claimed Hegel's "End of the History" was in 1806 with the battle of Jena and Hegel's completion of the Phenomenology.
While Marx's critique, "Hegel perceived in the Prussian state a harmony that sprang from the social morality present in the successive groups of the family, civil society, and the state. Individual rights and universal reason were consequently united in the state, which was the highest form of social organization."
Marx stipulated the reunification between alienated productions and the producer as the "End of History" definition in the Hegelian dialectic. With other modifications, he made his Dialectical Materialism. Then used that dialectic to "systematic and scientific" layout the future human history of the end of the Capitalist mode of production and the rise of the Communist mode of production, which coincidentally is what Marxism advocated, would be something determined to happen in the future, or at least the right course of human history.
In another way, Dialectical Materialism already had a preset "End of History" and preset general syntheses for every social-economic contraction that Karl Marx had covered. For those that Karl Marx had yet to cover, Marxists would find the most related Marxist syntheses and elaborate based on that.
In about two hundred years of Communist History, some Marxists/Communists negated syntheses (the mean or way to achieve the end goal) differ from Marx's synthesis. They will either be branded as revisionists or excluded from Marxism. Social Democrat, Fascism (not including Nazism, which is from a different branch), "Socialism with the Chinese feature," Marxist Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism were all the dialectic products between Marxism and Reality. The first three were excluded from Marxism because their syntheses too differed from Marx's. What the remaining Communists can do with "dialectical materialism" is to find the proper negation to fit in all thesis, antithesis, and preset synthesis. This environment formed a confirmative cycle of Marxist ideology.
An example of this was during the Great Chinese Famine of 1959–1961.
The other important component that makes Marxism a breeding ground of religion/ cult would be the lack of restraint on the Marxists; Marx's Literature usually described communists as the leader who lead the workers and brings them class consciousness. Which in actual practice meant that they have the right to final interpretation. After the revolution, the socialized man would be the only one with the freedom to regulate their interchange with Nature rationally. In actual practice, the Marxists/Communists would be in charge of the nation's economy. Communist was also permitted to use violent means to sweep away the old production conditions by force. But rarely put any restrictions upon those Marxists.
The faith in Marxism legitimized by the "systematic and scientific" of Dialectical Materialism, the absurd power of resource control and ideology interpretation given to the Communists/Marxists, a cult towards Communism (under the communists' interpretation) could quickly form in the ruling subject. For the communist believer or leaders, because of the lacking of power restrictions or any other mechanism for reflection, they could also trap in a spiral of left deviationism.
If you want examples of religious practices in Communism, you may search for the survivor account of the Culture Revolution. If you want examples of how blind faith in Marxist Theory and Dialectical Materialism masked a Communist leader's judgment, you can find the personal accounts of Mao and other PRC leaders before and during the Three Red Banners era.
The religious part of Marxism or Communism does not lie in the philosophical structure of Communism but lies in its "dialectic" logic and the absurd power given to the communists. Thus, no matter how materialistic and atheistic Communism theory was written to be. It would not change its religious Nature in practice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are right, The end times is simply the end of this system of things. But the communist society Marxism promised after the end of this system of Capitalism is a utopia. A society without oppresstion everyone can do whatever activity they wish, doesn't need to work, and no politic.
“communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”(‘The German Ideology’)
"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.” ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith')
1
-
1
-
TIK said “religions” used Dialects as a curtain that obscured the fact that the “religion” is a “religion”.
Dialects was just the tool, just like Confucianist, Taoist and Buddhist were used as the foundation and and the justification of religions. The dialects used in this video is mostly referring Marxist Dialects
Marx's dialectic showed that Hegel's "End of History" and resulting reconciliation of freedom and determination, was premature: Hegel had not accounted for the contradictions in what he called "civil society"--the economic sphere--that continued to undermine the "autonomous" activity of modern subjects. Since the species had not yet gained rational mastery over our economic activity, since collective social action was still characterized by alienated productions that take on a life of their own, and come to dominate their producers (arrayed under the category of capital), humanity had not yet returned to itself, and history remained incomplete.
Karl Marx redefined the term of “End of History” from Hegel’s from something indefinite, to a definite goal (the reunification of production and producers). Human can complete the incomplete history( the future, things that not yet happen) by reunify production to the producers, which coincidentally Marxism advocated.
1
-
1. Karl did want to build a centralized state and Frederick Engels started that the state would naturally die out from that centralized government/state/nation.
2. Every Communist State built a centralised state.
“Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
“Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. … When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out.” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pooplord6688 Your definition of "dialect" and the definition of "dialect" of TIK is the "thesis" and the "antithesis".
Criticising TIK's job of explaining dialectic in black-and-white thinking contradicts the content of your criticism.
According to what you type, shouldn't you tolerate and explore the contradiction between two definitions of "dialectics" and produce a new synthesis?
Marxists still use the thesis-antithesis-synthesis formulation to explain Marxism and Communism. Even though it is not Karl Marx written, it is how the Marxists would use and present Marxist Dialectic in the past and the present.
How can a video just about dialectic, Hegelian dialectic, and Marxist dialectic would "casted the net so wide here that it includes not only Popper's philosophy of science but basically the entire field of philosophy of science and pretty much all political theory produced in the last 200 years...except, of course, for that of Ayn Rand, who famously hated German idealism and Kant in particular, and her objectivist followers, including Peikoff!" It is just your personal rant on liberalism, not the content of this video.
Stating that dialectic cannot predict the future and is not scientific (which Marxists claimed it can and is) does not necessarily mean it is objectivism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1