Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Understanding Marxism: Qu0026A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]" video.

  1. Entrepreneur Communism and Capitalism have the same entelechy. Just one is actual substantial and fair, at once.
    1
  2. 6:15 -- Precisely. There is a marked difference between classical Marxian theory and then Orthodox Communist/Marxist theory. Two totally different idioms.
    1
  3. 58:30 - Also, then there are certain forces of counter-economics, as well [criminality].
    1
  4. Hitler Wanted to kill [or "breed out" {wouldn't have worked in his plan, either way}] anyone who would "poison" the "self-hood" [Selbst] of the German 'spirit' ["genes"]. Psychoanalysis [according to Freud!] is based on genetics, too...or at the very least [even though "genes" are his words] the body in connection to the mind [and memories]. It's all very important in concept. Not only was Hitler [and the grotesque gang of thugs he kept] very wrongheaded, and even despicably wrong and deceiving [he used the term "socialist" for the very same reason he used the title "christ", as a means to suggest to the people convincing ideals which would reify in their minds a concrete evincing that was really abstract, and vague, but they believed it anyway, which is how fascism of any sort tends to formulate itself...irrationally and erratically, in history].
    1
  5. Trying to critique capitalism without marxism is nuts It is. But interesting enough, the one of the first people to use the word 'libertarian' was a Communist. Joseph Déjacque was his name.
    1
  6. 52:40 - Yes, the method is scientific in a sense [not positive science, but negative science].
    1
  7. Joseph Alois Schumpeter Brilliant man.
    1
  8. Sokal affair, have you read about it? it's about how some language in some texts [Baudrillard, Delueze, etc.] confused Sokal and guess what he did? he then wrote a paper which he got published, and he used that paper to critique the used of language in peer reviewed texts, criticised the peer review system for allowing this. What he didn't understand is what he was originally reading. Postmodernism isn't "anti-science". It might go into post-structualism, but that isn't anti-science, either. Postmodernism isn't even usually ascribed to by the ostensibly denoted "postmodernist philosopher". They just don't really insist in such labels, only people apply them to them for the sake that they write about 'the postmodern condition' [you aught to read about that], and they write within postmodernity [which you and I live in].
    1
  9. Russian history, American history, Chinese history, European history All of these are intricately connected [and then some], yet hugely different scenarios. America is just as divided on the issue of state as Russia was the issue of national spirit [actually, both, in the case of America].
    1